Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Horticultural Industry

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will compute the increased costs to the horticultural industry as a result of new and increased taxes, surcharges, wage increases and general inflation since 1st January, 1965.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): Estimates of the aggregate cost change for agriculture and horticulture together have been published in the Annual Review White Papers. About one-tenth of the total for all products may be attributed to horticulture.

Mr. Hastings: Does the Minister fully appreciate that, unlike almost every other industry, horticulture is quite unable to recover these costs from the market? Does he appreciate that the position is reaching critical proportions for very many growers, and that something must be done? Would he make a start by persuading the Chancellor to cut out the fuel oil surcharge?

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman had better direct the latter part of his supplementary question to the Chancellor. I agree that growers have been suffering increased costs, and we took this into account at the Annual Review. Obviously one has to keep one's eye on other things, too.

Pigeons (Control)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to deal with damage to crops by pigeons.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): Advice on the control of this pest is readily available at local offices of the Ministry. Laboratory research and field experiments designed to find more effective control methods are still being vigorously pursued but there is no really simple solution to the problem.

Mr. Irvine: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for years he has been telling me that there is no simple solution to the problem? Has not the time come, in view of the great damage done not only to market garden products but also to corn, for him to go back and work out a proper scheme of shooting which would be both administratively viable and economically possible?

Mr. Mackie: Age does not alter a fact. There is no simple solution to the problem, even after all the answers I have given the hon. Gentleman. It has been established that shooting does not reduce the overall population of pigeons. Through their societies farmers can still get subsidised cartridges to protect their crops.

Mr. Farr: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if pigeon clearance societies were established on the lines of existing rabbit clearance societies and operated by skilful shots, the problem could be controlled most effectively?

Mr. Mackie: I agree, and I have sympathy with the idea, not just of rabbit or pigeon clearance societies, but pest clearance societies, which would include pigeons. Shooting alone does not solve the problem. It will only protect crops, but not reduce the total population of pigeons. This has been scientifically proved. Hon. Members may be interested to know that we are carrying out a large-scale experiment against pigeons in Bedfordshire using narcotic baits. Although we do not have very high hopes of this, we are doing it to see how we get on.

Food Prices

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the level of food price increases in each of the first four months of 1968.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): There has been the normal seasonal rise in food prices, which this year has been accentuated by the effect of the foot-and-mouth epidemic on meat supplies and by devaluation.

Retail food prices rose in each of the first three months of this year as follows:


December, 1967 to January, 1968
0·8 per cent.


January to February
0·6 per cent.


February to March
0·2 per cent.

There is usually a steep rise between March and April, for seasonal reasons; but I expect the figure for this year, which will be available in about a week or so, to show much less of a rise than is usual.

Mr. Judd: Would my right hon. Friend say specifically how these figures compare with previous years, and can he assure the House that the Government will deal increasingly firmly with unpatriotic elements in the business community that hold the country to ransom in this respect?

Mr. Hughes: We are watching food prices very carefully indeed. As to previous years, I can tell my hon. Friend that the increase in each of the last four years has been lower, on the whole, than in the preceding three years under the previous Government.

Mr. Godber: Has the right hon. Gentleman not forgotten one item in the list that he has given? Has he forgotten the effect of his right hon. Friend's Budget? Will he tell us what the effect of the Budget has been in increasing food prices, and what he anticipates it will be over the next two or three months?

Mr. Hughes: I certainly cannot give any precise figures. We have already said that we expect prices to rise due to devaluation. As I said, we keep closely in touch with current prices.

Dairy Cream

Mr. Archer: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make regulations to establish

standards relating to the bacteriological content of dairy cream.

Mr. Roebuck: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that of 106 samples of dairy cream purchases in London in the summer of 1967 only 20 per cent. were satisfactory bacteriologically according to a study made by the Bacteriology Department of Charing Cross Hospital Medical School, details of which have been sent to him; and whether he will take steps to formulate statutory standards for dairy cream.

Mr. Hoy: My right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health are advised that cream has a good record as a safe food. No cases of food poisoning or other illnesses have been attributed to cream contamination with any certainty during the past 10 years. Moreover, I have been glad to note that the dairy trade have recently adopted a code of hygienic practice for cream production, distribution and handling, and this will reduce what risk of infection remains. This code was drawn up by the Milk and Milk Products Technical Advisory Committee which advises my right hon. Friend on all technical matters concerning milk and milk products. In these circumstances, and in the absence of a universally accepted test, regulations laying down a statutory standard would not be justified.

Mr. Archer: While noting with satisfaction my hon. Friend's reference to the new code, may I ask whether he has considered the evidence referred to in Question No. 38? Is London worse than the rest of the country? Would it not be worth looking at again?

Mr. Hoy: We keep a continual watch on all these matters. I do not think London is worse, but contamination can arise through distribution and so on. Obviously we do our best to prevent it.

Argentina (Animal Health Regulations)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on recent discussions with the Argentine Government concerning the animal health regulations and their enforcement as it affects exports of Argentine beef and mutton.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am not yet in a position to make a statement about the veterinary mission to the Argentine, which also included discussions with the veterinary authorities in Brazil, Uruguay and Chile.

Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be widespread anxiety among the farming community whether there will be more stringent application of health regulations in the Argentine? Can he say what representations he has made to Professor Houssay during his recent visit to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hughes: I saw Professor Houssay very briefly before he went into the infected area. It is difficult to say more than that about Professor Houssay's visit, because the purpose was stated by my predecessor on 13th March. However, discussions were held with my Chief Veterinary Officer and other senior officials. The Mission which went out to Argentina from my Department is at the moment awaiting further information from Argentina before completing its report. I hope that it will be to hand reasonably early.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor stated that, though immunised, beasts not having the disease could be carriers and could spread it. Under those circumstances, what guarantee is there provided by inspection in the country of origin?

Mr. Hughes: It would not be proper for me to make any technical or scientific statement at this stage. I am awaiting the report from Mr. Beynon who went to Argentina. I shall make a statement to the House as soon as possible after I have received and considered his report.

South American Beef (Imports)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the light of recent new outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, he will now review the Government's policy on the importation of South American beef.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Aviculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, he will reimpose the ban on imports of Argentine meat.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The recent cases of foot-and-mouth disease are all connected with the main epidemic and there is therefore no reason to review the Government's policy in relation to imports of South American beef.

Mr. Mills: Surely the Minister will agree that if there is another serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease the consumer will suffer? Is it worth taking this risk? Will he bend on this and see what can be done to alter the decision of the previous Minister of Agriculture?

Mr. Hughes: Certainly I would not under-estimate the gravity of the recent outbreaks which caused the whole House grave concern. But the House has debated the matter, and the developments of recent weeks have done nothing to justify reversing my predecessor's decision.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Minister aware that the Minister of Technology has said that the reason why the ban could not be imposed was because the Government wanted to sell some Beagle aircraft to the Argentine? This is a shabby and not very convincing reason. Will the Minister have a word with his right hon. Friend and tell him not to say such silly things?

Mr. Hughes: I think that supplementary question is very unfair. The ban on mutton has been maintained, as the hon. Gentleman knows; but, for reasons which have been fully explained in the House, the ban on beef was lifted.

Mr. Monro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tonnage of chilled and frozen beef was imported from South America into the United Kingdom during April, 1968.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I regret that this information will not be available until the Overseas Trade Accounts for April are presented to the House towards the end of this month.

Mr. Monro: Is it not extraordinary that the Government do not know how much meat was imported in April? Can the Minister say whether it was more or less than was forecast by his predecessor on 3rd April?

Mr. Hughes: Information from trade sources about cargo space booked can


sometimes be useful in estimating future arrivals, but cargo space booked is not always filled, so it is difficult to give precise figures.

Milk

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Government are taking to stop the steady dilution of the pool price paid to British dairy farmers by the increasing imports of milk products.

Mr. Hoy: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 28th February in this year.—[Vol. 759, c. 1394–5.]

Mr. Mills: This ever-growing flood—indeed, deluge—of imports of milk products will bring about a most serious situation in the dairy industry. Is it not time that the Minister took action to control dairy products imported into this country?

Mr. Hoy: We do not under-estimate what is coming in. Nor does it do any good to exaggerate. However, we are discussing the whole matter with the National Farmers' Union and the Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. Godber: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board has recently expressed grave concern about the matter. Has he given consideration to this matter, and has his right hon. Friend given consideration to what has been said by the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board? If not, will the Minister give personal consideration to the grave situation that is developing on this front, which calls for definite action?

Mr. Hoy: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not catch what I said in the concluding part of my answer. I said that we were discussing this whole matter with the National Farmers' Union and the Milk Marketing Board.

Agricultural Produce (Imports)

Mr. Monro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he is giving to the reduction of imports of agricultural produce from countries with temperate climates.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The question of the right balance between home production and imports is under continuous

consideration, and the Government's determinations at successive Reviews have reflected the continuing importance which they attach to agriculture's import-saving rôle under the selective expansion programme.

Mr. Monro: Is the Minister aware that this is the answer we are given every month? Is it not time that we had some action? With the import figures running at £650 million per month, is it not time that some incentive was given to farmers to reduce this figure?

Mr. Hughes: The farmers were given an incentive in the Price Review. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Government have adopted a selective expansion programme to encourage import saving. This is something which his party never did.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister prepared to enter into further talks with the Government of New Zealand with a view to reducing our imports of lamb and mutton from that country?

Mr. Hughes: These matters are constantly under consideration. I would ask my hon. Friend to give notice of that question.

Mr. Stodart: Is the Minister aware that he has given a most disappointing answer to a most important question? Has he acquainted himself with the figures published today of the trade gap? Is it not absolutely clear that there is no chance of closing this gap by export efforts alone? Will he, therefore, give some positive encouragement to people to save imports by producing more food at home by giving them a really action-full policy now?

Mr. Hughes: I agree that agriculture has a greater contribution to make in this sphere, but this cannot be done overnight. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should have started it when they were in power, but they failed to do so. We have a constructive policy and, by successive Reviews, we have given farmers the incentives that they need. We shall continue to do that.

Fish (Minimum Prices Scheme)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the White Fish Authority's proposal for a statutory minimum prices scheme.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the cost to the Government of financing a statutory minimum prices scheme as proposed by the White Fish Authority.

Mr. Hoy: We are ready to consider any scheme that may be submitted by the White Fish Authority.
I understand that no Exchequer contribution is proposed.

Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that the original scheme was turned down by the industry because there was no Exchequer contribution? Are the Government prepared to reconsider this decision and to make a financial contribution in future?

Mr. Hoy: The scheme was not turned down for that reason, but because of lack of support. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he changed his opinion about the minimum prices scheme as a result of representations from the inshore fishermen.

Mr. Johnson: Will the Minister accept that a viable scheme of this nature, by giving higher financial yields to those catching fish, might mean in the end less Government subsidy, for which the Opposition are now clamouring?

Mr. Hoy: It may have that effect, but the Authority's proposals at present are a matter for discussion between it and the industry. It would be wrong for me to make any comment before the scheme had been submitted.

Fishing Industry (Review)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement on his Department's review of the fishing industry, in view of the undertaking to make a statement in 1967.

Mr. Dewar: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to announce the results of his departmental review on the future of the fishing industry.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement on the review of the fishing industry made by his Department.

Mr. Hoy: I shall be making a statement during the debate on the fishing industry later today.

Mr. Wall: Is the Minister aware that that reply is very acceptable? We have been waiting since the review was announced in 1965. The Minister will recognise that the industry is in a bad state, and I hope that that will serve to put it right.

Mr. Hoy: I hope to go some way in that direction, but the action that we will be taking will be to correct the Act passed by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Mr. Dewar: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that he will be in a position tonight to make a full enough statement to remove the doubts about future planning which have been bedevilling the industry for some time? Can he promise that he will not in any event curtail his statement during the debate, but that there will be a full debate in the not too distant future in Government time which will allow us fully to discuss the industry?

Mr. Hoy: I hope that what I have to say will partly satisfy hon. Members. I cannot make any offer of time. That is not my job. That is a matter for the Leader of the House. Thirdly, the time when we normally discuss them is when the schemes for subsidies are submitted. That is usually in July.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on this side of the House who represent fishing ports have waited for some months and are happy to wait for a few hours more for what we expect will be a most helpful answer by the Government?

Mr. Hoy: I only hope that it will be a step in the right direction. Everybody knows that the fishing industry has gone through a difficult time as a result of the market itself, and it is still working under the old Act laid down by our predecessors.

Mr. Stodart: I welcome the fact that a statement is at last to be made, but would not it have been for the convenience of the House, unless it is of inordinate length, if the statement had been made in reply to Questions today so that we could have had time to consider it before what, with the best will in the world, will be a short debate tonight?

Mr. Hoy: We have to take account of all the different parts of the industry. We have to consult them all the time. We had a meeting only yesterday. We had hoped to make the statement before now, but these things are always tempered by the number of people to be consulted.

Mr. McNamara: Does my hon. Friend agree that although his statement may go a long way towards helping the fishing industry, there is a good deal that the industry can do to set its own house in order?

Mr. Hoy: I think that certain things might follow from what we are doing to increase the efficiency of the industry as a whole.

Sir T. Beamish: Is the Minister aware that inshore fishermen at Newhaven and throughout the country feel that far too little account has been taken of their point of view? Will the Minister be saying something about them during the debate, and will he give the House some reassurance about them?

Mr. Hoy: I am aware of the position of the inshore fishermen. I have some in my constituency, and I hope that I shall be able to say something about inshore fisheries as well.

Imported Meat (Labelling)

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Meat and Livestock Commission are taking to enable meat to be clearly labelled so that housewives can be fully aware of the fact that they are buying meat emanating from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic.

Mr. Hoy: None, since this is not a matter for the Commission. All imported meat is already required to bear an indication of origin. Meat from non-Commonwealth countries must either specify the country of origin or be labelled "foreign".

Mr. Jopling: Does the Minister realise that many housewives do not want to buy meat which is potentially dangerous for another outbreak of this dreadful disease? Does he further realise that the powers which the Livestock Commission has enables it to label meat in that way so that housewives can be certain

that they are running no risks of that sort?

Mr. Hoy: When we were discussing the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in Committee upstairs we discussed labelling to a considerable extent, and I remember how bitterly the hon. Gentleman opposed the labelling of meat. Under the Trade Descriptions (No. 2) Bill powers will be given to impose marketing regulations in the interests of buyers, and we shall consider what is appropriate for meat.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that as far as possible meat imported from these countries is sold in the big cities, and thus the inevitable risk of a recurrence of foot-and-mouth disease is reduced to a minimum?

Mr. Hoy: Once the meat comes in it is very difficult to direct the wholesaler where to sell it. The difficulty is almost insuperable. As far as possible the wholesaler likes to sell that type of meat in the larger cities.

Mr. James Davidson: In view of the Minister's original reply, when he said that it was obligatory to mark the country of origin on imported meat, may I ask whether that is applicable to bacon and what steps are taken to see that the provision is enforced?

Mr. Hoy: I cannot answer that off the cuff, but I think that it applies to bacon. I said that the country of origin ought to be stated, or at least it must be labelled "foreign".

Wheat (Imports from France)

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he is taking to prevent the wheat market from being severely depressed by imports of French wheat before he is able to increase the minimum import charges.

Sir D. Renton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that from time to time during the past six months the price of wheat on the home market has fallen to too low a level as a result of foreign imports landed at British ports at prices below the cost of production; and what


steps he will now take to remedy this situation.

Mr. Deedes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that exceptionally heavy imports of French wheat during recent months have depressed the market to a point when some holders of grain in this country cannot obtain an economic price; and what further action he now intends to improve the market.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Imports of French wheat have not been abnormally large, but the low price at which it is on offer is a major cause of the current low price for home-grown wheat. While discussions continue about an increase in the existing minimum import prices following devaluation, the return to producers is not affected since this is safeguarded by the guarantee system.

Mr. Jopling: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he is prepared to tolerate a situation in which these dumped imports are wrecking our markets, and where the restitution of import subsidies paid on them is more than the selling price of the product? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that is an intolerable situation about which he ought to be doing something?

Mr. Hughes: I realise that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are a gross exaggeration of the facts. The fact is that we are having discussions. I hope that they will be concluded at an early stage, and I hope to make a statement to the House.

Mr. Godber: Is the Minister aware that his answer will cause grave concern to producers who have been alarmed at the way in which these imports have been coming in? Will he give the House an assurance that he will come to a decision about some form of control on these imports? If he does not he will not get the increased production about which he was talking glibly a few moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: We shall come to a conclusion as quickly as possible, but we have to discuss the matter and negotiate, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware. There will be no unavoidable delay. I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the International

Grains Agreement, which will be a help in this direction, will, if ratified, come into force on 1st July.

Eggs

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many thousand boxes of eggs he estimates will be imported in the April to March year 1967–68 compared with the 739,000 boxes imported in the previous year.

Mr. Hoy: Eight hundred and fifty-six thousand boxes of shell eggs were imported in the year April, 1967, to March, 1968, but within that total, following the action taken by the Government with the overseas suppliers, imports during the first three months of 1968 were 13 per cent. lower than in the corresponding period of last year.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Does the hon. Gentleman expect that decrease to continue in the remaining months and in future years?

Mr. Hoy: We have drawn that to the attention of those who supply them. We are often obliged to do so at certain times of the year. We want to do what we can to protect our own producers.

Home-grown Food

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the increasing need, what steps he now intends to take to persuade the public to buy home-grown food wherever it is comparable in price and quality with food from overseas.

Mr. Hoy: Like the hon. Member, I strongly support the objective of persuading the public to buy home-grown food that is competitive with imported food. But I think that the initiative should remain with the various producer and other bodies that are already taking steps to achieve this objective.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the time has come when quite clearly only the Ministry and the Minister can take the initiative because these commodities and foods are outside the realm of marketing boards or any other organisation? It is high time that something was done about this.

Mr. Hoy: We have done a considerable amount in recent times. I am thinking of the Apple and Pear Development Council, the Meat and Livestock Commission, the National Milk Publicity Council and so on. That kind of work can be done, and we are happy to cooperate, because obviously from every point of view we would rather see the people of Britain buying food and necessities which are produced within our own shores.

Cereals (Prices)

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the additional cost to livestock producers of increasing the price of cereals by £3 per ton.

Mr. Hoy: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the Question by the hon. Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) on 4th March.—[Vol. 760, c. 20.]

Mr. Stodart: Can the Minister confirm that when the White Paper says that the level of minimum import prices is under consideration, that applies to a revision upwards as, I think, one might expect? If it does, what recompense is to be given to livestock producers following upon the Price Review which was unagreed?

Mr. Hoy: "Unagreed" is a very good word. It certainly was not disagreed. There are already differences among livestock farmers in the feeding systems and cereals usage. Global estimates in the annual review are for all feeding-stuffs and estimates of cereal effect only would not be practicable.

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the rise in cost of imports, due to an increase in the minimum import price for cereals and cereal products of £3 per ton.

Mr. Hoy: An increase in the minimum import prices does not necessarily involve a corresponding, or any, increase in the cost of imports, since a minimum import price takes effect only if and when the commodity to which it relates is on offer at or below that price. Thus the effect of an increase in minimum import prices depends on the level of world cereals

prices. A general increase of £3 per ton would not at present increase the cost of most of our imports.

Mr. Stodart: Despite the hon. Gentleman's somewhat adroit evasion of this real problem, is it not absolutely clear that an increase in minimum import prices would put an extra burden on the balance of payments? It is surely clear that it would and that, if minimum import prices are to be raised, then at least import levies, which would be of advantage to the Exchequer, should come with them.

Mr. Hoy: Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say on that last point, that was not in his original Question. I was not avoiding the Question, adroitly or otherwise, but stating a fact. Obviously, one must take all these things in balance. Of course we must think of the effects of the present prices on our own trade. Indeed, it is always difficult to know whether hon. Gentlemen want to put them up or bring them down. What we must do is act in the interests of both the producer and the consumer.

Saw-Toothed Grain Beetle

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to eradicate the saw-toothed grain beetle; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Mackie: This pest is widespread in imported foods and homegrown grains. Its eradication is not commercially practicable, but every effort is being made by publicity, inspection and free advice to ensure that those concerned with storage, transport and processing of food and feedingstuffs know how to prevent and control the pest.

Mr. Kitson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the saw-toothed grain beetle was not in this country five years ago—

Hon. Members: Resign!

Mr. Kitson: Does he know where it came from? Would he not agree that this has created a serious problem for the malting industry over germination?

Mr. Mackie: Her Majesty's Government have been blamed for many things in the past three or four years, but this is a new one. I appreciate the difficulty


and the danger of this pest, and considerable assistance can be given for fumigation and so on. Advice is available from the advisory services to those concerned to prevent and control the pest, although eradication is very difficult to carry out commercially.

Egg Marketing Board

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated annual cost to producers and public funds, respectively, of the Egg Marketing Board.

Mr. Hoy: Excluding payments to producers, total expenditure by the Board in 1966–67 was £22·7 million primarily in respect of marketing expenses which are defrayed out of trading receipts. The only cost falling directly on producers was the Board's levy on sales amounting to £1·37 million which was used to meet in part the cost of the Board's research and publicity programme. The cost of the Board to public funds is nil.

Mr. Biffen: Even on those figures, does the hon. Gentleman accept that on any cost the Egg Marketing Board is very bad value? Would he comment on the sharp criticisms of it by the Government-appointed Consumers Committee?

Mr. Hoy: No, Sir, I would not care to comment at the moment. A Committee is investigating the Board at present and the time for comment will be when its report has been received.

Meat and Livestock Commission (Levy Scheme)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will make the levy order for the Meat and Livestock Commission.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Commission have today published their proposals for a levy scheme which have been formally submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and me. We are now ready to consider these proposals and to receive representations from the interests concerned before deciding on the submission of a draft Order for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament. My right hon. Friend and I hope it may be possible to

lay a draft immediately after the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if the full levy asked for is authorised it will cost the livestock industry £3 million in a full year? Is he satisfied that producers will get a good return for their money?

Mr. Hughes: I am anxious that producers should get a good return and also that the economy should benefit, but it would not be proper for me at this stage to be drawn into discussion on this, because the Act requires the Commission to submit proposals and requires me to examine them and to be satisfied before any levy scheme is brought into force.

Bacon Pigs

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the delay in the preparation of contracts for producers of bacon pigs; if he will investigate the reasons for this delay; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hoy: Any contract for the supply of pigs is a commercial matter between the parties and is of course not a Government responsibility.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that the average weighted contract price offered at the end of last week was sixpence below the standard price for pigs? Is he satisfied that this will lead to a recovery in the pig herd, which was called for in the Price Review White Paper?

Mr. Hoy: The signs are that there will be a recovery in the pig herd, but the hon. Gentleman is now asking the Government to interfere between the producer and the bacon curer, which I am certain would not meet the commendation of the whole House.

Brucellosis (Accredited Herds) Scheme

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on the Brucellosis Eradication Scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Mackie: Up to the end of April, 9,150 applications for membership of the Brucellosis (Accredited Herds)


Scheme had been received. Some 5,000 herds are in varying stages of their qualifying tests, and 235 herds have been registered as Accredited.

Mr. Kitson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to speed this up. Those are respectable figures, but this is not good enough. There is a serious health risk. Could not something be done to speed up the eradication scheme?

Mr. Mackie: We are satisfied with the rate of applications, which is about 90 a week, compared with 100 immediately before the foot-and-mouth epidemic, which is just about the same. In due course, we feel that the numbers will reach, I think, at the end of this year, about 3,250 herds, but, of course, we need far more than that before we can think of compulsory eradication.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my hon. Friend consult his colleagues in the Ministry of Health to try to discover the true incidence of this disease, particularly among farmers, farm workers and veterinary surgeons, since many of us believe that it is far more common than is generally realised?

Mr. Mackie: I would agree on this, but it is not a notifiable disease and figures are difficult to get. The numbers of cases reported each year between 1963 and 1966 varied between 123 and 169. The provisional figure for 1967 quoted on 2nd February was 242.

Mr. Godber: But will the hon. Gentleman please make some further effort in this matter? We all recognise the great problem in that the scheme had only just been started when the epidemic broke, which meant that a good deal of work was diverted, but we all want much speedier action. Would he ensure that the maximum attention of farmers is drawn to what can be done and that special steps are taken to get moving on this, since we in this country are lagging behind in this regard?

Mr. Mackie: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is being done. He must appreciate that, apart from the testing, there is no pool of accredited herds at present from which to draw. I would not like to say that veterinary surgeons are working to full capacity on it, but the tests are complicated and this is going on. I can assure the right hon.

Gentleman that we will see that publicity is given to this matter. The N.A.A.S. and the veterinary officers are aware of the feeling in the country about it.

Mr. Hooson: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present scheme will take many years to achieve anything like eradication? Has further consideration been given to a compensation scheme, even if it has to be introduced regionally, and at least to the disease being made a notifiable disease?

Mr. Mackie: No, Sir. We are always getting into trouble with the Opposition, which includes the Liberal Party, about spending money. If we were to carry out a full scheme of eradication, it would cost between £45 million and £50 million, apart from the fact that our milk supplies would be reduced during the operation. Hon. Members in the Liberal Party should look at things practically and not from an airy-fairy point of view.

Milk Producers (Dorset)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many milk producers there are in Dorset; and how many there were three years ago.

Mr. Hoy: The number of registered milk producers in Dorset at 31st March, 1968, was 1,952, compared with 2,175 in March, 1965.

Mr. Digby: While appreciating that the larger herds are now more economic, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind that many of the Dorset holdings are essentially dairy holdings, not suitable for anything else, and that too great an increase in the number of milk producers cannot be desirable?

Mr. Hoy: It is true that since 1950 the number of herds has progressively declined. I know that it will be a consolation to the hon. Gentleman to know that in his part of the world the decline has been much less than in the rest of England and Wales. In addition we have increased milk production, and have larger herds in his area.

Bees (Granular Insecticides)

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage the use


of granular insecticides this year in order to reduce the loss of bees and other useful insects.

Mr. Mackie: My Department has already begun, and will continue to give, seasonal publicity on ways of avoiding harm to bees arising from the use of pesticides. The National Agricultural Advisory Service will be encouraging farmers to adopt methods of control which do least harm to bees and will advocate the use of granular insecticides wherever appropriate.

Mr. Farr: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he is satisfied that his message is drawing the attention of farmers to the very real value of bees for increasing certain crop yields?

Mr. Mackie: I do not think that the agricultural community needs to be given that piece of advice. We all know the value of bees, especially those of us who are growing beans. I was at an agricultural executive committee meeting not far from the hon. Member's constituency the other day, and when I entered the room the discussion was about the use of these granular insecticides. Our N.A.A.S. representative was giving advice to farmers. I can assure the hon. Member that steps are being taken, but there are occasions when granular insecticides are not so appropriate as wet spray.

Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine (Antibiotics)

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the report of the committee set up to advise on the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the appointment of a body to consider the evidence about the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry and veterinary medicine and its implications in the field of human health.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I hope to announce the membership of this committee very shortly. Its terms of reference will be:
To obtain information about the present and prospective uses of antibiotics in animal

husbandry and veterinary medicine, with particular reference to the phenomenon of infective drug resistance, to consider the implications for animal husbandry and also for human and animal health, and to make recommendations.
I am glad to say that Professor M. M. Swann, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh, has agreed to be the Chairman.
In these circumstances it is not possible to say when the Committee will report.

Dr. Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that in view of the fact that his predecessor announced the formation of this Committee as long ago as last September, this is a regrettably unsatisfactory record? While allowing for the pressures on his Department occasioned by the foot-and-mouth outbreak, will he recognise that we will forgive him only if he can give an unqualified promise to the House that the Committee will be encouraged to report quickly and that he will take action on its report immediately?

Mr. Hughes: I am sorry that it has not been possible to set up the Committee earlier, for the reasons which my hon. Friend has given. Nor is it possible to say when a report of an independent committee of this kind will be made. I am sure that the Committee will report as quickly as it can. The important thing is that it should do its job properly.

Mrs. Butler: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, since the slap-happy use of antibiotics in agriculture appears to be self-defeating, in rendering some animals and possibly human beings, through food, unable to resist infection, the terms of reference will be wide enough to enable the Committee to recommend a ban on certain antibiotics used in agriculture, as well as just making general control recommendations?

Mr. Hughes: I cannot accept the charge levelled in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. If she will read the terms of reference—which I have read out to the House—in HANSARD tomorrow, she will see that they are sufficiently wide to enable this work to be done admirably.

Mr. Stodart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he could not have gone to a better country or a better city to get the Chairman of this Committee?

Cyclamates

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what expert representations he has now received in regard to the need to print the specific name and the amount of artificial sweeteners on food labels; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now introduce regulations to require that, in the labelling of products containing cyclamates, the specific name of the sweetener shall appear on the product.

Mr. Hoy: My Department has received no further expert representations since the Labelling of Food Regulations, 1967, were made, and I have nothing to add to my Answer given to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on 23rd October last.—[Vol. 751, c. 383–4.]

Mrs. Butler: Can my hon. Friend give a categoric assurance that his expert advisers are satisfied that it will be possible to measure the amount of cyclamates taken in with food without this kind of information on the label?

Mr. Hoy: As my hon. Friend knows, we have to depend on our advisers who are specialists in these matters. Their opinion was embodied in the 1967 legislation, and I see no good reason to depart from it.

Mr. Hunt: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are still many people who, rightly or wrongly, regard cyclamates as a potential danger to health? Surely people who feel this way are entitled to be told when any product contains this specific type of sweetener? Why cannot this be required to be done?

Mr. Hoy: Those who advise us on these matters said that if we put on "artificial sweetener" this would convey the necessary information to those people. There are many who will argue, and certainly some gave evidence to this effect, that if this is clearly stated on the label, it is more readily understood by the purchasing public.

Departmental Staff

Mr. J. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what factors he attributes the continuing in-

crease in the number of officials employed by his Department in the last five years, in view of the progressive decline in that period in the number of agricultural holdings in England and Wales.

Mr. John Mackie: The main factors causing an increase in this Department's staff over the past five years are the additional work arising from the development and implementation of new policies, and the associated significant expansion of technical and advisory services. The net output of agriculture has risen by about 15 per cent. in the same period.

Mr. Farr: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he would agree that the pattern of figures which I have put in my Question is unsatisfactory? If one projects it sufficiently far into the future the position will become entirely ridiculous. With that in mind, will the hon. Gentleman try to contain the costs of his Department?

Mr. Mackie: We always try to contain the costs of Government Departments. I would point out that there is no direct connection between the number of holdings and staff requirements. It is almost in reverse proportion, because as smaller and non-viable or uncommercial farms are amalgamated, generally speaking the farmers concerned are more progressive and want more advice and more farm improvement schemes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that they should be there. Of the 840 increase in staff that I have mentioned, 429 are technical staff, "vets" and so on, and 72 are in the economic division. It is not a case of officials for the sake of them. They are mainly advisory and technical people.

Rabies

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when last a dog died of rabies while in quarantine; and if he will give the same information about cats in quarantine.

Mr. John Mackie: The last death of a dog from rabies in quarantine was in October, 1949. The last death of a feline animal was of a leopard cub in November, 1965.

Sir Richard Glyn: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that three or four animals developed rabies in quarantine in the last 20 years out of perhaps 50,000 or 60,000 subjected to it? Will he further agree that during this period, the great majority of animals capable of carrying rabies coming into the country have not been subjected to quarantine? Will he look at this matter again?

Mr. Mackie: I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's figure but my figures are that the number of cats and dogs imported annually has risen from 3,650 in 1963 to 4,750 in 1967. The figures are rising and the danger is greater. Although the numbers of outbreaks in recent years are small I would point out that in two, if not three cases, since 1929 there have been instances of rabies occurring after the six-months' quarantine period. The hon. Gentleman must know what a terrible disease this is if it gets into human beings, and I do not think that precautions can be too great.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my hon. Friend agree that it is very many more years since there has been a case of human rabies in this country, but that we are almost unique in the world in this respect, and that this shows the value of our quarantine regulations?

Mr. Mackie: I agree.

Departmental Staff (Wales)

Mr. Hooson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the civil servants employed by his Department in Wales come directly under the London office; and how many come directly under the Welsh Secretary in Aberystwyth.

Mr. John Mackie: The Welsh Secretary takes full responsibility for the work performed by 918 of the Ministry's staff in Wales. The remaining 562 are certain professional, scientific, technical and supporting staff for whom the Welsh Secretary has a general co-ordinating responsibility, but who report on technical matters to the directors of services at Ministry headquarters. The senior officers in Wales of the major technical services are stationed alongside the Welsh Secretary at Aberystwyth.

Mr. Hooson: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it would

probably be more convenient if in course of time all these officers were directly responsible to the Secretary of State for Wales? Is a review being carried out into this in the Department at present?

Mr. Mackie: No, Sir. Since I had this job I have been to Wales a great deal and I have been in close touch with the Secretary of State for Wales and Welsh farmers. I have not heard any complaint about the services we provide and the way in which we run them and I see no reason for altering them.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour Party included in its 1964 election programme all agriculture with health and education under the aegis of the Welsh Office, and that there is a widespread belief that this is not being done because of the unwillingness of certain Departments to release the Welsh part of their administrative empires?

Mr. Mackie: Has not the hon. Member heard of the pragmatism we have been looking at in the last four years?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Local Museums (Treasure Trove)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in view of modern travel and educational facilities, whether he will take steps to ensure that all locally discovered historical and artistic objects of value should remain in their local museums instead of being concentrated in central overcrowded museums.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): Where these objects are treasure trove and therefore Crown property decisions about their safekeeping are best taken individually, with regard to their nature, value and national importance, the facilities needed to care for them adequately, the local interests involved and the accessibility of the museums concerned to the majority of the interested public.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that St. Ninian's very valuable treasure, which was discovered by an Aberdonian in the Shetland Islands, was incarcerated for a very long time in Edinburgh Museum away from public view until at


length it was rescued and sent to Aberdeen Museum where happily it is now on public view? Was it not a disgrace, and will he see that this does not occur again?

Mr. Millan: I do not think I would accept everything my hon. and learned Friend has said, but replicas of St. Ninian's treasure are being made. Most of these have been completed now and I hope they will be made available to the Shetland Museum shortly. That, I think, we would all welcome.

Mrs. Ewing: Would not the hon. Gentleman reconsider the decision and transfer this treasure to the Shetland Museum in view of the fact that it is a very beautiful modern museum and that there is an absence of crime in the Shetland Islands, which cannot be said of many parts of the mainland of Scotland?

Mr. Millan: I am not sure what is meant by the second part of that supplementary question, but this matter has been considered carefully and I do not think we can reconsider the decision which has been taken.

Commercial Premises, Glasgow (Rates)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that several Glasgow commercial establishments have closed down because of the high burden of rates; and if he will take steps to reduce the rates burden on commercial premises.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I am aware of some commercial establishments in Glasgow have closed, but not that increased local rates have been the only reason for these closures.
The incidence of rates on commercial premises raises complex issues, on which my right hon. Friend is not yet ready to make a statement.

Mr. Taylor: Would not the Minister agree that it is rather ridiculous that Lewis's, in Argyll Street, Glasgow, should pay twice as much in rates per square foot as Selfridge's, in Oxford Street, London, and that Glen's Warehouse, in Ingram Street, Glasgow, is now paying twice as much in rates

as 10 years ago? Does the Under-Secretary agree that the problem of empty shops in Glasgow is urgent and serious? Will he consider action before the revaluation of 1971?

Mr. Buchan: We are looking at the whole question, but there are other arguments about the reasons for these increases. It has been argued that there is over-restrictive ownership and that there are, perhaps, too many stores in the centre of Glasgow.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Would not my hon. Friend agree that most fair-minded experts in valuation of commercial properties recognise that Glasgow is over-stored and that, particularly, the House of Fraser has brought this problem on its head by leasing properties from insurance companies at enhanced rents?

Mr. Stodart: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not the only reason, but it is a very major reason, and will he try to drop the apparent air of equanimity with which he views this disturbing trend?

Mr. Buchan: There was no air of equanimity. I said that we are considering it and wish to identify the areas where the average increase is highest, and so on. We take all the factors into consideration. We are not going to jump at an easy answer on this matter simply through panic pressure from hon. Members opposite.

School Children, Glasgow (Entrance Date)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the operation of a single entrance date each year for primary schoolchildren in Glasgow; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Millan: A number of representations have been received from parents and others. My right hon. Friend has now required Glasgow education authority to fix two commencing dates for the 1968–69 session and to submit proposals for this purpose. He has also indicated that he will be glad to have further discussions with the authority on any proposals it may have to put to him.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Under-Secretary aware that many parents who wrote to


him directly or through their Members of Parliament, will be extremely grateful for the action taken in this matter?

Scottish Economic Development: Quarterly Report

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost per annum to public funds of the publication, "Scottish Economic Development: Quarterly Report".

Mr. Millan: About £2,000.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: As this glossy publication seems to consist almost exclusively of highly tendentious puffs for the Transport Bill and the Secretary of State for Scotland—no doubt both need those puffs—would it not be more seemly if it were financed from Labour Party funds?

Mr. Millan: I think it an excellent publication. I am sorry that the hon. Member either does not read it or, if he does, does not understand it.

Teachers (Registration)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many teachers have now registered with the General Teaching Council.

Mr. Millan: I understand that 41,688 applications have been received by the General Teaching Council and that registration has been completed in respect of 32,108.

Mr. Hannan: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on resisting the representations of minority teachers' organisations? Can he say how many teachers are not yet registered with the council?

Mr. Millan: I am not able to give an exact figure, but I think the number will be very small indeed.

Housing, Glasgow

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to the Cullingworth Report proposal that Glasgow's housing problem should be treated as a special case; and, in view of the fact that the recent storm has aggravated the position, whether he will now announce his decision.

Mr. Buchan: My right hon. Friend has been thoroughly examining this and the other recommendations in the Report, and he hopes to announce his proposals soon.

Mr. Hannan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the private owners' associations in Glasgow are most reluctant to effect repairs on houses which have been impaired by the storm? What powers has the local authority in Glasgow to go into these properties and effect repairs for people who are suffering as a result of the storms?

Mr. Buchan: On the aspect of storm damage, the Minister of State is having weekly meetings with the local corporation, and tomorrow he is having a meeting with the corporation and property owners to go into a number of the very complex financial issues involved.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: As the Under-Secretary said that he is looking at further assistance for Glasgow, can he give an indication when the assistance might be increased?

Mr. Buchan: I do not know whether the hon. Member is referring to storm damage or to the general Cullingworth Report. Our decisions will be made known, I hope, shortly.

Storm Damage, Midlothian (Horticulturists)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums he estimates will be paid to horticulturists in Midlothian as a consequence of storm damage.

Mr. Buchan: About £1,100.

Mr. Eadie: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Is he aware that there is still some anxiety in Midlothian about damage? I think he will recollect that I wrote to him about it. Can he do something to disabuse people's minds about the way in which these payments can be expedited?

Mr. Buchan: As I recall the exchange of correspondence, the constituent involved has received a satisfactory answer. We give up to 38⅓ per cent. in grant towards the cost of the damage. Only one case has not been met and that is where only minor damage was involved.

Mr. Stodart: As the hon. Gentleman refers to "what will be paid", does he mean what has been paid, because the storm took place in January and it is very disturbing to think that there are any claims still unpaid under the horticultural improvements scheme?

Mr. Buchan: This depends on how quickly people applied. We have tried to use every measure to ensure that people apply timeously. We believe that there are still some applications to come in, but those which have been received have been met timeously.

Young Persons (Status)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for introducing legislation to amend the law of Scotland relating to young persons with particular reference to the devolution and ownership of property, to contracts and to franchise.

Mr. Buchan: As the reply is rather long, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: In these days of widespread education and early maturity, does not the Under-Secretary agree that the splendid young people of today should have all the rights of citizenship?

Mr. Buchan: Yes, but it depends upon how far down the scale my hon. and learned Friend brings the word "young".

Mrs. Ewing: Would the Under-Secretary consider that 18 would be a good age for all the purposes of status, franchise, contracts and property, and would have the advantage of simplifying the position so that all young people would know exactly where they stood?

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Lady was reiterating much of the content of the Latey Report and will be aware of the discussion and the debate which has taken place on this subject in the House.

Mr. Maclennan: If my hon. Friend accepts the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing), does he agree that he would be making the position of a number of young people in Scotland under 18 considerably less advantageous than it is at present?

Mr. Buchan: Yes, Sir. There are distinct advantages as between Scotland and

England in this respect. In some ways many of our young people enjoy privileges which are denied to the same age group in England and Wales as well as the protection afforded to the young.

Mr. Doughty: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number, but not by any means all, of students aged 18 and just over have shown such irresponsibility recently that the facilities should not be extended to people of that age?

Mr. Buchan: I am also aware that a very large number of young people, including students, have shown great responsibility.

Following is the reply:
In his statement on 10th April, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made it clear that in many respects minors in Scotland are already free from the restrictions which apply to young persons under English law. In these circumstances, the main purpose of any amendment of the law of Scotland relating to minors would be to avoid the anomaly which would arise if young people in Scotland remained technically minors until 21 while their contemporaries in England and Wales were given the status of majority at 18. My right hon. Friend has not yet come to a decision on whether this justifies early legislation and he would welcome any expression of view on this matter. As regards the franchise, any legislation which may follow the recent report of Mr. Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law will be drafted on a United Kingdom basis, but beyond that I cannot add to my right hon. and learned Friend's earlier statement that the Government are still considering the matter.—[Vol. 762 c. 1401–3.]

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY (FINNISH CONTRACT)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. RANKIN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the decision on the award of the contract for Finland's first nuclear power station is imminent, and that the Finnish Government will be governed by technical and commercial considerations as well as by the broad issues of economic policy, he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to support the technically and commercially competitive offer made by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): With permission, I would now like to answer Question No. 58.
Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government are doing everything in their power to support the tender made by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Every suitable opportunity has been taken to make the Finnish authorities aware of the importance we attach to this contract, of the pre-eminent position of the United Kingdom in the field of nuclear energy, and of our expectation that the award of the con tract will be decided on commercial grounds as required by the E.F.T.A. Convention.

Mr. Rankin: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for his intervention. Is he aware that it will bring very great encouragement to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in its attempt to win this important contract, particularly Ls two very powerful European competitors are already in the field for this order?

Mr. Dell: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. Only last week, during the E.F.T.A. Council meeting, we took a further opportunity of expressing to representatives of the Finnish Government our interest in this contract.

Mr. David Price: Will the Minister impress upon the Finnish authorities that to choose, for instance, a Russian reactor in preference to a British nuclear reactor on grounds other than technical or economic would represent a big setback to Anglo-Finnish relations and would be outside the spirit of the E.F.T.A. Agreement?

Mr. Dell: We have emphasised to the Finnish authorities our expectation that this will be decided on commercial and technical merit. Before the tender was made by the Atomic Energy Authority, it sought assurances from the Finnish Government that the only criteria would be commercial and technical merit. These assurances were given and have, indeed, recently been confirmed.

IMMIGRATION, BIRMINGHAM

Mr. Gurden: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of Birmingham City Council to request the Government to stop immigration into that city from overseas.
That my request is specific there can be no doubt. That it is important can best be judged by the special high-level conference of the local authority concerned as reported in the local newspapers and on the B.B.C. today. No one who has not buried his head in the sand could fail to appreciate the importance of the matter.
For all too long has the strain on Birmingham and the Midlands been neglected. It is not only a question of finance but of ceasing to aggravate the problem by allowing a disproportionate number of immigrants into this area. The Government are responsible for allowing over 50,000 immigrants to arrive into the country this year. The House should be at least fully aware of the overstrain on the education, housing, health and welfare services which this city has a statutory obligation to maintain. The city cannot any longer meet that obligation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should require urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of Birmingham City Council to request the Government to stop immigration into that city from overseas.
The House will remember that under revised Standing Order No. 9, agreed to on 14th November, 1967, Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in that Order, but to give no reasons for his decision.
In the light of the new provisons, I now rule that the hon. Member's submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Peart.]

DEVELOPMENT OF PLAY- GROUPS

3.37 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to promote, assist and support the development of play-groups and other activities for preschool children.
I seek leave to bring in this Bill on behalf of 5,000 citizens who have no vote, but, I am happy to say, a growing number of champions in the House. My Bill would be concerned with the growing number of under-5s, but particularly with that section of the under-5s, namely, the 3 to 5 group, who, despite the frequent promises made by successive Governments, have so far not been able to participate in what is theirs by an educational right, namely, nursery school education.
The facilities for the physical care of the under-5s generally have increased and improved yearly. In terms of clinics and health centres, we are probably the envy of many other countries. By contrast, the facilities and the responsibilities for catering for their educational and emotional needs are inadequate, chaotic and departmentally confused, at both local authority and central Government level. Whether a child gets nursery education free under the Department of Education and Science, whether he goes to a voluntary play group under the Ministry of Health, or whether his parents pay for him to attend a day nursery, depends largely on where the family lives. This shows that this is nothing to do with policy, but is largely determined by the area in which parents live and the facilities there available.
On many occasions we have raised the question of the lack of development of nursery schools, something which was promised in 1944. I am engaged in the campaign for the enlargement of nursery school provision. The frequent replies we have received from Ministers and others have made it increasingly obvious

to me that we shall not get a wide provision of nursery schools for the present under-5s. Indeed, if we have to wait as long as we have waited since the 1944 Act was passed, the present under-5s will be campaigning for their under-5s to receive nursery education in 25 years' time. It is that situation which my Bill seeks, if possible, to avoid.
The Bill refers to what has become a very worth while but voluntary substitute for the nursery school, namely, the development of the play group movement, which now has 80,000 children affiliated to it. That is a lot of children, and there are probably as many children in play groups and other establishments required to be registered under the Nursery and Child Minders' Act, 1948, about which we do not know because they are not necessarily connected with the National Association.
By contrast, if we consider the figures of the late Dr. Simon Yudkin we see that there are about 35,000 children attending nursery schools under the Department of Education and Science. It seems an odd situation in which the play group movement is almost daily increasing in size and provision, catering for more and more children between 3 and 5 and concentrated under the Ministry of Health, when, but for luck and area, they would be receiving the full educational attention and benefits of the Department of Education and Science.
We have, therefore, reached the point when the majority of our under-5s are, in many areas, now receiving some sort of nursery school education, but provided by unqualified people who have no reference whatever to the Department of Education and Science. It is time that we recognised—I recognise it reluctantly because I strongly believe, as a nursery school teacher, in nursery school education—that, for the time being at any rate, play groups have become a substitute in many areas for nursery schools.
When answering Questions on this subject various Ministers have said that the reason we cannot make this provision nationally is because of the shortage of teachers and money, which makes it necessary not to extend the provision of education but to concentrate it on the present areas of education. In view of the growing play group movement, this is an area where those arguments do not


apply and where, with a little imagination and a small amount of expenditure, we could bring the educational aspects of the play group movement under the Department of Education and Science, raise the standards of the movement and also take some worth-while action to see that, in those areas where these facilities have not been provided, local authorities, I believe with Government compulsion, should be expected to provide them.
The people running the play group movement have been managing on a shoestring for a long time. They have had, with good local authorities, some help, but, with bad local authorities, no help at all. Since there is no Government attitude, lead or sense of direction about the kind of assistance that local authorities should give to play groups, some groups have been helped enormously by education establishments and inspectors from the Department of Education and Science while others have been brushed aside.
The result is that the play group movement requires, more than anything else, its educational content to come under the auspices of the Department of Education and Science, particularly for groups with more than, say, 10 to 20 children. Considerations other than health arise. Generally in these cases the considerations apply to such things as toilets, room sizes and heating facilities. These become secondary to the emotional and educational needs of this group of children.
It is much more than a question of minding children, yet the person minding three or four children and running a play group is registered under the same Act—and the same sort of provisions and requirements are insisted upon—and it is time that we decided the point at which the movement should become the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science.
We want training courses which would not make these people into nursery school teachers, but equip them with a basic understanding of young children, their needs and the facilities they re-

quire for their play. There is a wide sphere to be considered in terms of school-leavers, young girls who perhaps would not make infant or primary school teachers, but who, with a little training, could contribute enormously to the running of play groups.
I will not go into the whole question of the needs of the under-5s. They are so important that we all know them and enough has been written and said about them. Let us recognise that the more society develops—in housing, away from large families and with the pressures of an urban community—the more we will produce neurotic children unless we begin to recognise the needs of children at the age of 2 or 3 and take the necessary steps to cater for them.
Next Tuesday the Campaign for the Advancement of Nursery Education will be presenting petitions to the Department and the Prime Minister. A lobby by the under-5s will take place in Parliament—[Laughter.]—that is true—and I hope that many hon. Members will take heed of the needs of our younger citizens when those petitions are presented by the under-5s and their mothers. I have the suspicion that, with due encouragement from some of us, it will be an effective and vocal lobby and I trust that the House will not for much longer be able to ignore it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Lestor, Dr. David Kerr, Dr. David Owen, Dr. Shirley Summerskill, Dr. Miller, Dr. John Dunwoody, Dame Joan Vickers, Mr. Roy Roebuck, Mr. J. E. B. Hill, and Mr. Hugh D. Brown.

DEVELOPMENT OF PLAY-GROUPS

Bill to promote, assist and support the development of play-groups and other activities for pre-school children, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th May and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

SUPPLY

[23RD ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Mr. Speaker: I wish to announce that I have selected the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister.

BRITISH ARMY (VOLUNTARY RESERVES)

3.48 p.m.

Mr. James Ramsden: I beg to move,
That this House deplores Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the voluntary reserves, the fact that the strength of Territorial and Army Voluntary Reserve Category II is declining and that officers and men of Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve Category III can do training only at their own expense; believes that the citizen reserve which this nation needs cannot be maintained unless opportunities for recruitment, training and service are available in all parts of the country; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government for an early statement in this sense.
Before I come to the Motion, perhaps I might be allowed to say how much we shall all miss the late right hon. Member for Bassetlaw, Mr. Bellenger, who was such a regular contributor to our debates on the Armed Services.
I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite are surprised that we should be debating the Territorial Army so soon after our recent season of Service debates. If they are, they need look no further back than the debate of 6th March last to discover the reason. We then raised, among other matters, the question of the future of T. & A.V.R. III, which, by a Government statement of 16th January, was or is under sentence of disbandment. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army agreed in March that it was desirable that an early statement should be made to put an end, as he said, to a situation in which a number of people were in suspense—or, as he put it, in a state of suspended animation. He also confirmed that talks were in progress between the Territorial Army Council and his Ministry.
That was in March. Two months have now elapsed, no statement has been made and there is no indication even that one is likely to be forthcoming soon.

Indeed, from the attitude struck by the hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence for Administration last week at Question Time, rather the reverse. Meanwhile, T. & A.V.R. III, disbanded or no, is continuing training and men are going to camp at their own expense, a situation which must be without parallel in the annals of the Territorial Army.
I said in March, and I repeat, that there is no wish on this side of the House that anything should be said to prejudice the outcome of any talks which may be in progress, but from the absence so far of any outcome it is legitimate to infer certain things. I infer that the Territorial Army Council is sticking to the point, which it has maintained from the outset of discussions on the reorganisation of the reserves, that the future of T. & A.V.R. is not something which can be disposed of in isolation, but is part and parcel of the future success of the whole volunteer reserve system if we are to have a system which is to work. Hence I infer that the problem of burying T. & A.V.R. III and putting it tidily away is turning out to be a good deal more difficult than was, perhaps, originally expected.
That is the background to the debate and I come to the first part of the Motion, which refers to T. & A.V.R. II, the volunteers. On 6th March, the Under-Secretary of State referred to the strength of this reserve and gave some figures.
Their strength"—
he said—
is about 38,000 against an establishment of 51,000. We expected to reach a strength of 80 per cent. of establishment or 41,000 and the shortfall is not much more than that"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 483.]
When the hon. Gentleman told the House that, I thought that perhaps he was being unduly complacent about the strength of this reserve. Now that I have looked up the trends and have had an opportunity of studying the latest figures, I am sure that he was being complacent.
The figures of the strength of T. & A.V.R. II show a marked downward trend, a fall of 1,200 between August last and February this year, and in March, the month for which the latest figures are available, a fall of 320. March was the worst month yet for recruiting to T. & A.V.R. II.
The first point, therefore, that causes us concern is the falling strength of the T. & A.V.R.II, and, even more, the steady downward direction of the trend in its strength, particularly when one recalls that the order of battle of T. & A.V.R.II has been accurately and deliberately tailored by the Government to meet the specific need of the reinforcement of Rhine Army. To the extent, therefore, that this reserve falls short of establishment, by so much is the efficiency of Rhine Army, in the event of mobilisation being required, impaired.
When one remembers that of the 74 per cent. or so which the Government now have, quite a high proportion—I have heard estimates as high as 25 per cent.—would, for one reason or another, prove to be ineffective in the event of a call-up, and when one further recalls that of this strength a number are already committed to the "Ever-readies" and might have been pre-empted, the deficiencies in the establishment of that reserve and its present strength by no means give the Government ground for satisfaction, still less for complacency.
Among the reasons for this trend is, undoubtedly, the general uncertainty which hangs not only over the reserves, but over the Regular Forces, as a result of the vicissitudes of the defence policy of hon. Members opposite. Certainly, from all the information which I can get, that uncertainty is causing unsettlement among the permanent staffs associated with T. & A.V.R.II and is causing numbers of them to leave.
I might mention, in passing, that the point was made to several of my hon. Friends who recently visited B.A.O.R. and saw T. & A.V.R. units in training there that there was complaint that they were not able to recruit N.C.O.s, of whom they are short, from volunteers from the Regular Reserve. To that extent, there is a deficiency which might be made good. There may be a reason for this. Perhaps the Government spokesman will care to refer to the point when he replies to the debate. Certainly, that was a cause of complaint.
To return to the reasons for the disappointing recruiting results, it is certainly becoming clear that with an organisation which provides unit drill halls and the locations of units as widely

spread and as thinly spread as they are throughout the country, many volunteers are beginning to find that they have a long distance to go to do their training and that the effort to do this weekend by weekend is too much, and they are giving up.
Thirdly, there is the question of the type of unit which is available to a volunteer who contemplates service with T.A.V.R.II. The point has been made already that because of the large proportion of logistic units which make up this reserve, it may not provide the kind of opportunities which a young voluntary soldier expects when contemplating giving up his time to do spare-time soldiering.
My conclusion is that if the major part of our volunteer reserves is to be organised as T.A.V.R. II now is—and, perhaps, it must be—with the proper proportion of logistic units in their already widely-spaced locations, and if it is to be so organised without any other units such as T.A.V.R. III provides to supplement it and to provide something attractive for volunteers to join, there is bound to be doubt whether, in practice, it will ever be sufficiently well manned. If it is not sufficiently well manned, the linchpin of the whole reserve system devised by hon. Members opposite is knocked out. Hon. Members opposite know this. It is bound to be a question of concern.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): Can the right hon. Gentleman expand on one point? I am interested to know how he thinks that the provision of T. & A.V.R. III home defence units would attract recruits to logistic units, whether they be R.E.M.E. or Ordnance units, because those are the units we want. The right hon. Gentleman says that men are not joining those units but might join T. & A.V.R. III units. How would that give us the manpower that we want in logistic units?

Mr. Ramsden: I am coming to T. & A.V.R. II and I do not want to to be led astray, as I was in the last debate, into making too long a speech. I think that I shall cover the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
I turn now to the question of T. & A.V.R. III. The House will recall


that originally this reserve formed no part of the Government's proposed reorganisation of the Territorial Army. It was eventually set up, as a result of pressure from a number of quarters, with a specific civil defence rôle related to a possible nuclear emergency. It got going pretty well and on 16th January, in the statement by the Prime Minister, it received notice of disbandment.
Looking back, I believe that the real reason why the T. & A.V.R. III came to be set up was very little to do with the role that the Government eventually found for it. I think that the real reason, and the one that the Government eventually accepted, was what had been urged on them from the very beginning by the Territorial Army Council, and, indeed, by everyone who knew anything about how the volunteer system worked and who told them, until they were blue in the face, that unless they widened the basis of voluntary recruitment by including a force like T. & A.V.R. III along with the rest, with the right sort of units and drill halls in the right places, they were likely never to get enough volunteers to join.
It was in response to that pressure that eventually they conceded the setting up of T. & A.V.R.III. This explains why, although T. & A.V.R.III has now been officially disbanded, the Ministry of Defence is allowing it to carry on, because at the moment the simple fact is that they dare not dispense with it, and they know it. I would be the last person to say that they are not right.
The Minister of Defence for Administration spelt out the reasons on 6th March in our last debate, and I will quote what he said of the T. & A.V.R.III:
…the Army in the United Kingdom got certain benefits from its existence. The Army got benefits by having an Army presence in parts of the country which would not otherwise have an Army presence. Definite advantages were obtained.
A little later he said:
…there was evidence that the T. &amp; A.V.R.III was providing volunteers and acting as a recruiting agent for T. &amp; A.V.R.I &amp; II and the Regular Army. It helps recruiting throughout the country by providing facilities which the recruiting machine is able to use.
A little later he said:
We have to find methods to retain these benefits for the Army…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 559–60.]

I believe that the hon. Gentleman was and is quite right. As I have said, that is one reason why the T. & A.V.R.III is carrying on.
The House should note that it is carrying on in the most extraordinary circumstances. It is right, and in itself justification for our having the debate today, that the country should hear about these circumstances, because, in spite of the recognition by the Government that the situation was worthy of some statement, no public announcement has hitherto been made.
Quite soon after our last debate the T. & A.V.R. III were told through the commands of the interim arrangements which would operate them for them during the summer. They were to get no pay or training expenses or allowances but centres were to remain open for the purposes of training. I gather that originally there was agreement between the T.A. authorities and the Ministry of Defence that they would get a travel allowance, but this was subsequently vetoed by the Treasury on the ground that the force had been disbanded and no longer existed. This was much resented at the time, and with good reason.
They were also told that they would have no annual camp, but it was said that proposals for camps at no cost to public funds would be considered. In practice, we know that considerable numbers of men have been regularly attending camp, giving up their time to go to training nights, and a number of units have been actually going to camp. If hon. Members are interested in the details, they can find them in a quite interesting account in The Times of 26th April, headed "Unpaid Army goes to camp".
The cost of all this has been borne by regimental funds, and in many cases by employers who have made up the pay of men who have left work so as to do training, and in all cases substantial expense has fallen upon the volunteers themselves, who have given up opportunities for paid overtime work which, as we all know, are available more at this time of the year than at any other. All this they have forgone.
I have two comments on this situation. First, it seems the most extraordinary way to run the affairs of a body of men who, after all, are still part of the Armed


Forces of the Crown, although disbanded. Secondly, if the Ministry of Defence is, as I believe, coming to realise that without this force the whole voluntary system is in danger of breakdown, and is coming to realise that it must have this force, then all good luck to the Ministry, but there is a limit to the amount that it can expect to get from these men on the cheap. The Ministry must recognise it, and bring this absurd situation to an end.
This is a short debate, and I will, therefore, sum up the arguments that I have tried to make.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would the right hon. Gentleman let me intervene?

Mr. Ramsden: I am not disposed to give way. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have an opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker.
I do not believe, from all the evidence that we have before us at the moment, that the Government can be confident that they will succeed in making the voluntary reserve system work without the T. & A.V.R. III, or something very much like it. It will become increasingly clear to them that the permanent organisation which they have devised will need to be modified to include, alongside T. & A.V.R. II, something on the lines of the present T. & A.V.R. III, which will provide the kind of units that part-time soldiers want to join, in locations which they can easily reach.
The Minister of Defence for Administration intervened earlier to ask me what is the point of providing units in which the staff have no role. I have two answers to that. In the first place, we on this side of the House do not accept, and have never accepted, that there is no genuine home defence role, that there is no role from the point of view of providing a force available for the expansion of our Armed Forces. Secondly, this debate about the role of the force seems to me to be quite misplaced if the Government cannot undertake to make adequate arrangements to attract sufficient numbers of volunteers. That is the first and essential point.
I believe that the Government must provide a better spread of drill halls where potential recruits can get to them, and must provide, also, the opportunities

for the kind of soldiering which those who volunteer want to do. These units must be live and going concerns, not just cadres. This has been said all along by those who best understand the Territorial Army and the problems of recruiting, and experience is proving them right. Without something like this we shall not get the men, and we shall run a grave risk of the whole system breaking down.
These details will certainly take time to work out, and in the meantime two things are immediately necessary. First, the Government should make a statement re-affirming that the Regular Army of the future will need strong and well-equipped reserves, and that it is their intention to do what is necessary to provide them.
Secondly, they should at once declare full Government support, in practice, of the present reserves of all the existing categories, to ensure their active and efficient survival during the interim period, otherwise they will find that they have nothing left, or inadequate numbers left, to reorganise. The consequences of that would be indeed lamentable. It would mean that we had squandered the whole of the rich potential of voluntary service on which we have relied for a long time now for the provision of reserves for our Armed Forces. We should have destroyed that, and the Government would wake up to find that they had destroyed what could never again be replaced.

4.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
expresses appreciation to all officers and men who have given such unstinting service to the Territorial Army and Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserves in peace and war during the last 60 years; believes that the establishment of Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserves I and II has provided the best equipped and trained volunteer reserve that has ever been available for the regular army and supports Her Majesty's Government's decision to disband Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve III as an active force but to continue discussions with the Council of Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations aimed at preserving as much as possible of the regimental titles, skills and permanent assets of Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve III
As the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) said, we are going


over ground that was well trodden two months ago. For that reason, and because I know that many hon. Members are anxious to speak on a subject about which they feel strongly, I shall be as brief as I can.
I feel that the Motion is a clear indication that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have still not really grasped the underlying strategic reasons for the changes in the structure of the reserves which the Government made in 1966. The large-scale citizen Army recruited from every corner of the country no longer makes military or economic sense; we have moved on a quarter of a century since 1939.
The main feature of our reorganisation of the reserves was to separate from each other the two distinct rôles of reinforcing the Regular Army overseas and of providing aid to the civil power in the United Kingdom. For the first rôle we designed the Volunteers—T. and A.V.R. I and II. For the second the Territorials—T. and A.V.R. III. Having clearly defined the rôles of these separate categories of the reserve, we started to train and equip them so that they could meet their commitments.
I can personally vouch for the fact that, although it has been in being only a short while, T. and A.V.R. II is in good shape. I recently visited the Royal Yeomanry Regiment in camp at Bellerby, in Yorkshire. It is a T. and A.V.R. II armoured car unit with a reconnaissance rôle. It has Ferrets and Saladins. And I am glad to say that its members no longer rely on the 19 set for their communications: instead they have been equipped with modern V.H.F. sets. When I saw them they had just finished an exercise. I talked to many of the men and they all said—without any prompting from me—that their new equipment had given them much greater confidence, and they felt that they were competent, professional soldiers. They were full of enthusiasm, and I confess that I could see no difference in their attitude from that of Regular soldiers whom I have seen in B.A.O.R. and on Salisbury Plain on exercises.
I asked one of the Regular officers with me for his reaction to them. He said precisely the same, that they were

full of good spirits, showed excellent competence and very much the same kind of attitude that Regular soldiers would after an exercise. I pressed him a little, and he commented that one of the senior N.C.O.s had light brown shoes with no toe-caps, that some of the officers had sticks which were not quite of regulation length, and that one or two soldiers had luxuriant hair—a matter which I privately rather envied. But this T. & A.V.R.II unit was in excellent form, and my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration, who has made similar visits, has found exactly the same situation.
In our efforts to make the volunteers a really effective force, commanding officers of T. & A.V.R.II units have set high standards of training. That is one of the reasons why some of the volunteers have left. Although the general quality has been high, some of the recruits have not quite made it. This has been one of the factors in the slight decrease in the strength of T. & A.V.R.II which has occurred over the last 12 months.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot really make a case for any significant change in either the intake or the outflow of the T. & A.V.R.II reserve. I gave the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) a set of figures about this the other day. The figures are not statistically significant. Indeed, in March, which is the last month for which there are figures, there was a slight increase in intake. From February, 1968, the intake has gone up from 957 to 1,027, and the outflow has increased a little from 1,239 to 1,300.

Mr. Ramsden: This is rather important. Will the hon. Gentleman make clear from where he gets his figures? Those which I have from T.A. sources, which, presumably, are those on which the Government work in giving figures, show a drop of 320 in March.

Mr. Boyden: That is the total figure, which I am about to give. The column of figures which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes did not include March. The last figure was February, and I have just given the March figures of intake and outflow. The total figures are as follows. At the end of April last year, there were 36,200 men in


T. & A.V.R.II. The strength then rose to about 37,750 in June and July. In March of this year, it stood at just over 36,000. That explains the drop of 200 to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
I do not think that I was guilty of complacency in dealing with this situation on 6th March. The force is relatively new. As I say, the numbers do not show anything in particular from the statistical point of view. We can do with more recruits, and we hope that we shall get them.
In a new organisation like this, another reason for some outflow is that some of the men taking on these commitments did not fully visualise what they were and dropped out later for that reason. On the whole, recruitment has gone fairly satisfactorily as compared with the target that my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration set when the force was instituted. About 13,000 recruits have joined the T. & A.V.R. II during the course of the year.
The hopes of the Ministry of Defence were set on about 80 per cent. of the establishment. In fact, 74 per cent. has been reached. Recruitment has been especially satisfactory in the "teeth" arms, where it is well above average. In some others, notably medical units, it has been below it, and this is a matter for concern. By and large, however, recruitment has met the expectations of my hon. Friend, and the level of 80 per cent. is not far from being achieved.
However, T. & A.V.R.II will never be a citizen Army on the scale which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to have in mind; nor will our reserve forces as a whole be as big as those of some of the N.A.T.O. countries. Many of our European allies have bigger reserves than ours because they have retained conscription and, therefore, can put into a reserve compulsorily the conscripts who have passed through a spell of full-time service. Our philosophy is different, and it is a philosophy which I thought was accepted on both sides of the House as being the reason for the difference in attitude to the size of our reserves. We decided on this course of doing without conscription, and it was a matter of general agreement.
If there were a departure from that, and it was thought that large reserves were desirable, the cost would be out of all proportion to the expectation of the kind of war which may take place in Europe, which is not a protracted conventional war. In the terrible event of a war in Europe, we envisage that we would have time to call out the existing force of trained volunteer reservists and move them to Germany to reinforce B.A.O.R., but that we would have neither the time nor the logistic capacity to call up and transport to Europe a large citizen Army organised to fight in its own military formations.

Mr. James Dance: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us a little about the "Ever-readies"? Are they still in existence? Are they operating?

Mr. Boyden: They come into operation in an emergency. They are not as well recruited as we would wish, but, certainly, they are in operation and reasonably satisfactory.
The vital importance of the quality of the reserves makes nonsense of a return to a concept like that of the old Territorial Army. It is generally recognised that our existing reserves have achieved a high standard of training as well as receiving the most up-to-date equipment. These standards could not be maintained with a much larger reserve. In fact, actual quantity of reserves would defeat their quality.
I turn now to T. & A.V.R. III. We all know this force as the "Territorials" but we-must be quite clear that it is not the same as the old Territorial Army.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boyden: No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady now. We have not got much time and no doubt she will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, later.
The old Territorial Army had three rôles. First, it was to reinforce the Regular Army overseas, particularly B.A.O.R. Second, it was to aid the civil power and reinforce the Regular Army in the United Kingdom. Lastly, it was to provide a framework upon which, in a period of rising tension, general preparations for war could be built up.
When the Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve merged and became the T. and A.V.R., Categories I and II were given the task of providing reinforcements for the Regular Army, and Category III was given the primary rôle in the event of a general war of assisting the police in the maintenance of law and order and acting generally in support of the civil authorities. Of course, as a secondary rôle T. & A.V.R.III would be used to engage enemy forces if there were a sudden invasion of the United Kingdom, but this task would fall mainly upon the substantial numbers of regular operational and training units and other reservists who would be in the country at the time.
Thus, the rôle of T. & A.V.R.III was essentially one of home defence and it was never the Government's intention that it should provide a framework on which there could be built up, in a period of tension, a general citizen Army. This third rôle of the Territorial Army was abandoned because it was no longer relevant.
Because its primary aim was to aid the civil power, it made sense that the cost of T. & A.V.R.III should be borne largely on the home defence Vote, but although it was on the home defence Vote 10 per cent. of the cost was borne by the Ministry of Defence because the Army benefited from it in certain ways. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 16th January that as part of the cuts in public expenditure home defence was to be reduced to a care and maintenance basis. This decision affected not only the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service, but also T. & A.V.R.III.
The reason for the Government's decision to reduce the level of home defence has been explained several times. Briefly, it is because it is the view of the Government that the chances of a nuclear attack on this country have decreased over the years—they have not disappeared, but they have decreased—and that the risk is now sufficiently small for the Government to be able to make substantial reductions in expenditure on home defence as a contribution to the broad, comprehensive measures we are taking to restore the economic strength of the country.
I should like to emphasise that the Government's decision to put the T. & A.V.R.III on a care and maintenance basis in no way reflects on the quality of the people comprising the force. Their service, which goes back many years—this is the 60th year of their evidence—has been magnificent and their keenness and enthusiasm are a byword. They embody the volunteer spirit at its best and I hope that where it is possible men in T. & A.V.R.III will transfer to T. & A.V.R.II
Since the Government's decision on home defence was announced we have been discussing with the Council of Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations the concept of T. & A.V.R.III on a care and maintenance basis. Our talks have two particular purposes. First, we are trying to see how much in the way of special skills and physical assets can be preserved at minimum cost so that, if circumstances change in some way, the force can be expanded in line with the expansion of other home defence services.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "physical assets"?

Mr. Boyden: Drill halls, rifle ranges, and things of that description.
Secondly, we are trying to find ways of retaining the benefits which the Regular Army and the other categories of T. & A.V.R. get from the T. & A.V.R.III. One obvious aspect we have in mind here is recruiting, but I am afraid that the figures here are not particularly encouraging. Over the past year about 285 members of T. & A.V.R.III transferred to T. & A.V.R.I and II and about 100 joined the Regular Army in that same period. These are not large numbers and they do not in themselves give very much support to the view that T. & A.V.R.III helps significantly in recruiting, but we are looking at these figures and trying to assess something that is difficult and rather intangible, the point the right hon. Gentleman made, although I think he exaggerated, that the presence of the T. & throughout the country would have a good deal of military significance. We are looking at this and trying to assess its significance.
The discussions we have had so far with the Council have been very helpful and we intend to go on consulting them. Indeed, at lunchtime today we received proposals from the Council about the future of T. & A.V.R.III. We have not had time to study these yet, but we shall consider them carefully, and will also consider carefully any constructive suggestions that are made by hon. Gentlemen this afternoon. The long-term future of T. & A.V.R.III will be decided in the light of the forthcoming studies on the reserves as a whole, and we are not going to be hurried; we intend to consider this carefully.
In the meantime—and the right hon. Gentleman referred to this—we have taken steps to reduce the rate of expenditure on T. & A.V.R.III in the current year to about one-third of what it has been—from nearly £3 million a year to £1 million. We are making immediate savings by allowing training on an unpaid basis only. Travelling expenses for attendance at such training are no longer paid, and unpaid training this summer will include attendance at camps where this can be carried out at no extra cost to public funds. Instructions have been sent out for this rundown to all commands.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the House the latest Government estimate of the economy to be achieved by disbanding T. & A.V.R.III?

Mr. Boyden: If it is totally disbanded, it will be £2·8 million, according to the figure in the estimate last year, and the saving at the moment will be about £2 million. About £800,000 to £1 million is involved in the present rate of expenditure. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this saving is a specific economy. I can recollect the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition complaining not so very long ago about some of the defence cuts as not being cuts which were having effect at once. This is an economy which has effect immediately.
I must say to right hon. Gentlemen that the idea which they still hanker after of a citizen reserve based on "opportunities for recruitment, training and service…available in all parts of the country" would cost a very considerable

amount. I ask them where the money would come from. Would it come at the expense of the Regular Army, or would it come from the Navy or the Air Force? Would they cut the social services? Would they repeat the mistake they made with the old T.A., of trying to do too much with too few resources?
The Government have defined clearly the rôles of the various parts of the reserves. We have these rôles continuously under review so that, if necessary, they can be modified to meet changing circumstances. It is the Government's policy to ensure that the reserves are properly organised, trained and equipped so that they can carry out their commitments. It is a policy which is based on the realities of the present situation, a policy which faces facts. There is an interesting quotation from George Herbert which applies to the party opposite:
Who gives to all, denies all.
In the field of defence the Opposition offer carriers to the Navy, more aircraft to the R.A.F. and a citizen force to the Army, much to the embarrassment of the Army and the citizens, and their commitments are Kiplingesque in range, content and cost. Yet they would cut public expenditure and reduce taxation. If I may paraphrase what was said about the charge of the Light Brigade, it is magnificent, but it is not sense.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I am glad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you read out the Amendment which the Prime Minister has seen fit to move. I am sure that most Members who have listened to it would agree that it is one of the most foolish and long-winded Amendments that any responsible body of men ever tabled in this House. The first part might have been written by Mr. Ernest Hemingway as a sort of "Farewell to Arms" and the second part by Mr. Evelyn Waugh, "Put out More Flags".
I hope that when the Minister of Defence for Administration comes to explain what he means about preserving the skills, assets and whatnot of the Territorial Army, he will make it clearer than did his Under-Secretary. The thinking of the Ministry of Defence reminds me more and more of Colonel Popski's


description of a great American headquarters—a mighty mill grinding air.
Under its present incumbents, this is what the Ministry seems to be becoming. We have just listened to one of the most pathetic speeches in defence of the Government's military thinking that has ever emerged, even from that Front Bench. What is interesting is that this thinking is being denied by a large number of people throughout the country who are prepared to go on believing in the need for a citizen's Army at home and doing it in their own spare time, without any help whatever from the Government. This is rather a phenomenon and I hope that some of those employed by the Ministry—goodness' knows what they are all doing—might observe this, because it is rather remarkable.
I would like to refer to some of the units doing this training. Some of my hon. Friends and myself put down a Motion, signed by a total of 150 of my hon. Friends, called "Patriotism Unrewarded". This defines very well what is happening to those people who, without pay, spend their time on military training, in spite of no travel allowance, very little help for camp, no promise of insurance in camp, although I am told it is now being modified, and in spite of the sneers of hon. Members opposite. They get no Press support, no headlines, no hysteria. When one has highly intellectual students burning a Union Jack in front of a member of the Royal Family, this is news, but these men going to camp is not.
It is remarkable that there are these people today, in an age which seems to devote most of its time to protest, prepared to devote some of their time to patriotism and duty. I would like to give the House a few figures to show what is happening in the North of Scotland in a small unit with which I am connected called the Lovat Scouts. People are turning out once a month, travelling great distances at their own expense, to carry out drill.
Further south, in Staffordshire, which I have the honour to represent, two excellent units, the Staffordshire Yeomanry and the 5th/6th Staffs have something like 50 per cent. turning up for one drill a week. This is costing money for these men, some of them have to get from Uttoxter to Rugeley at a cost of about

7s. a night, plus food, and a row with their wives when they get home.
They are not old men, "old sweats" going to the "pub"; they are young men in the great majority of cases. Further south, in the London area, out of an establishment of about 2,600, about 1,200 are attending weekly drill at some expense. It is not perhaps the same expense as people who have to travel longer distances in Staffordshire and the North of Scotland. These people are attending voluntary camps and in all probability the law is being broken, because these regiments are raiding regimental funds, which have to be used for charitable purposes and they are spending money which ought to be Government expenditure.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Government was still looking at these things. Surely to goodness, while they are doing so, they should give some assistance to these few men. The sum of money is not large, and it is a shameful situation which should be removed. I have the figures here for all the units, if the hon. Gentleman has not already seen them.
The extraordinary thing about this—perhaps it will come as something of a shock to the 30,000 people slaving away in the War Office and Departments of Defence, is that these people are probably, right, and the 30,000 people led by the Minister and the Ministry are wrong. Oddly enough, military thinking is turning much more in this direction today. This is the point. The hon. Gentleman got up and said that this was military thinking in 1966, but his thinking might have been in 1066 for all that the countries of the world care. He said that we have no need of reserve forces. What about the American National Guard? What about Europe, Russia, Eastern Europe? Have they no need of reserve forces? Everyone is wrong except for us—everyone is out of step except for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence, who is not here this evening.

Mr. Reynolds: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain why when he was Under-Secretary of State for Air and Secretary of State, he got rid of the R.A.F. volunteer reserve forces?

Mr. Fraser: I am talking about land forces, which do not need the same sort


of training as pilots. A pilot is a fully skilled man needing three years' full-time training. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but he is behaving like a buffoon. One can train infantry men, tank drivers and armoured car drivers fairly rapidly, but neither hon. Gentleman nor his right hon. Friend can teach a person to fly modern aeroplanes successfully in under three years.
Perhaps after that delightful interlude we can return to the facts of the military situation. These have been highlighted by the departing remarks of Mr. McNamara, when he said that in his view it was ridiculous to regard the threat of an incredible action as an effective deterrent. This is the key of our argument. To believe that the inevitability of nuclear warfare is a truth is wholly and palpably absurd. It is even more absurd when it comes from the hon. Gentleman, who has just declared that the nuclear threat to this country is less. If that is so, it follows that the nuclear threat to armies in Europe is less, too. This is precisely the reason why there is need for more of a military reserve.
It is clear from the general acceptance of the ideas of General Beaufre, of the French Army, that this is no longer the inevitability which at one time people believed it to be. Many Governments accept this; my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), believed this. It was a very useful thing and saved a great deal of money. This is what the Government are doing now. There is always a tendency for Governments to do this. It is either total destruction or nothing. Therefore, we can spend all this money on nuclear arms and disregard the need for soldiers on the ground. This is the doctrine put forward by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. This doctrine is clearly becoming out of date. From recent N.A.T.O. discussions this is no longer the belief of the N.A.T.O. commanders. Therefore, strange though it may be, the people who are right in this matter are not the obsequious generals and the bumbling and baffled boffins in the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but the young men going to camp this year.
This is an important matter. I have seen these generals. One at least, General d'Avigdor Goldsmid, had the honour to resign when Director-General of the Ter-

ritorial Army. But there are a lot of generals, so keen to reduce the Territorial Army, who are now becoming worried about the reserves available to them. I will not mention names, but hon. Gentlemen opposite will know about whom I am talking. One general, in particular, who was so keen on reducing the Territorial Army, is now worried where the reserves will come from.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Mrs. Anne Kerr (Rochester and Chatham)rose—

Mr. Fraser: I will not give way. I have almost finished.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Mrs. Anne Kerr rose—

Mr. Fraser: I am sorry. The hon. Lady will no doubt catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye later.
The fact is that, given our European commitments, there is grave danger, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) said, that our reserves as a whole are beginning to fall and are beginning to be a real threat to the preservation not only of the defence of this country, but of the preservation of our European commitments. With recruiting for the Regular forces falling and the old conscript created reserves fading away, I believe that our present Army could be hard-pressed if we became involved in a semi-conventional war.
I will take one instance. The Under-Secretary of State has told us with great excitement of his visit to a T. & A.V.R. II reconnaissance squadron. The fact is that if there were a prolonged tank battle today, there are no tank reservists in this country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is so pleased with the military theories and so full of the brilliant conceptions of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, will explain to the House how it is, when serious military planners are talking of three or four weeks and more running battles in Europe, there is no one being trained as a tank reservist in this country. I believe that the general case I have made is a strong one.
I now turn to the immediate case, to use the parlance of the hon. Gentleman, of the T. & A.V.R.II. What is happening there has been described by my right hon. Friend the Member for


Harrogate. Without an active T. & A.V.R.III or a broader-based Territorial Army—I hate these Ills, Its and Is—it is inevitable that this force will wither away. Looking at the figures which have been given, they are as confused as those given by the Treasury. If Mr. Cecil King were here today he would find them as deluding as others given by other and more senior members of the Government Front Bench.
The T. & A.V.R.II figures are falling. I am informed that in the City of London more people are joining the T. & A.V.R.III than the T. & A.V.R.II. This is significant. If these start falling away we will have a situation where the commitments to which the Minister is committed will simply not be met. Allowing for the 25 per cent. inevitable wastage which we get in a call up of these people, far from 50,000 being available in two years time, which is hoped for, there will be at most half that number, 25,000. No wonder the people in B.A.O.R. are getting nervous. No wonder we are right in putting down our Amendments.
I believe that this time the Territorial Army Council is being consulted. Negotiations are going on. At least this is an improvement on the first time. The Territorial Army was destroyed and decimated by Generals Hackett and Carver. The T.A. Council was not consulted then. I give this advice to the T.A. Council: be robust with these Ministers, because their military thinking has been proved wrong; they have not got much longer in office, so make a stand for what is necessary for the defence of this country.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I could hardly be out of order if I pursued for a moment the question of the baffled or was it bruised boffins in the War Office to whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) referred. He referred to 30,000 slaving away in the War Office. This was his quotation not mine. An issue arises on this matter, because I am fascinated by the way in which Conservative Service ex-Ministers come along here and make snide attacks on the Civil Service and on my right hon. Friend's Department.
I believe—especially as I do a great deal of work on the Select Committee on Science and Technology looking at the Defence research establishments—that perhaps there is a good case for a proper O & M study to be done in my right hon. Friend's Department. I suggest a constructive and practical idea: namely, that my right hon. Friend should put in a formal request to the Defence Operations Announcements Centre at Byfleet to do some kind of study in depth of the Ministry of Defence and those who work there. I do not care for snide attacks in general terms on the Civil Service, which works very hard and does its best. However, a proper O & M study should really be done.
I would mention one other thing about the speech of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone. I can believe that the Lovat Scouts are extremely keen, and good luck to them. But should what is often their pleasure and enjoyment be paid for by the State? This is a separate issue. The right hon. Gentleman said that many of the people who serve with the Lovat Scouts might go home at the end of the evening to face a row with their wives. I would put it differently: that this might be a good opportunity for a night out. I do not sneer. I do not say that the T.A. is a place where they go for a good night out and where a certain amount of alcohol is consumed. That has never been my attitude. On the other hand, there is a real issue. Clearly the men who do this work enjoy it. The issue, in our present economic circumstances and in the absence of what I believe to be lack of operational requirement, is whether we should continue it.
This brings me to the speech of the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden). He said that he refused to accept that there is no home defence rôle. What is the home defence rôle of the T. & A.V.R.III? I think that this should be identified and made clear to the House, because I do not believe that it has a home defence rôle. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt me on this matter?

Mr. Ramsden: Not particularly. I was deliberately trying not to widen the debate to a discussion on rôles. We went over all this during the last debate, and the hon. Gentleman was present.

Mr. Dalyell: I was present during the whole of the last debate.
I am baffled. How can one argue for this kind of force being continued in the absence of an operational requirement? Unless a definite operational requirement is established, with the best will in the world I cannot bring myself to understand how the Opposition can argue as they do. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrogate went on to say that the rôle of the force was irrelevant unless one could attract recruits to it. I do not think the rôle of the force is irrelevant. How does one substantiate the case for any particular force unless one is fairly clear about its réle. Is it not a chicken and egg argument? I do not understand this.

Mr. Ramsden: To put it broadly, when one is relying on a voluntary reserve and that is all one has, the first and the most important thing is to get a sufficient number of volunteers. That is the priority for any system.

Mr. Dalyell: Surely the answer was given by the Under-Secretary of State who talked about the logistics required by any European war or confrontation. If one believes my hon. Friend, what is in fact the method by which such a force would be used if it is not for home defence? If it cannot be used because of logistic considerations on the European Continent, how is it to be used? It seems we are discussing a superfluous force. It has an honourable record; we do not sneer at it, but we have to expect change and my hon. Friend is right.
I would like to ask my hon. Friend about the criteria on which he disposes of drill halls. He knows there is a certain amount of discussion as to how these often good buildings should be used, and I would like to hear of the philosophy and criterion on which he is disposing of them. I think priority ought to be given in any cases where local authorities have in mind any sports facility requirement for these drill halls.
I am extremely concerned about the recruiting figures, and I would ask what his feeling is about the ideas that have been put: forward within the services and outside that the structure must change and that it must become a matter of normal practice that a man retires much earlier. If a man retires earlier than

normal, what is the relationship of the T. & A.V.R.II? There is a great difficulty, and this was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrogate when he said that we were not giving the opportunities that a soldier had a right to expect. In a post-imperial situation it is extremely difficult to produce the kind of excitement that perhaps went along with an imperial commitment.
I would like to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of State what are his views on the question of how a service career could be made worth while and what he feels about the various discussions and negotiations that have been going on with the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief Scottish Command, Sir Derek Lang, and the ideas he is putting forward for some kind of civilian use of the forces and knitting together civil requirements and military requirements to make a Service career worth while. I would like some up-to-date information on that.
As my hon. Friend knows, I sat through six days of defence debates earlier this year during which I made a request, as yet unfulfilled, which has been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden). If we are to discuss defence seriously—and I am genuinely concerned about the Services—we have a certain right to understand precisely what the Opposition are saying from that Front Bench—I am not including extravagances from the back benches—concerning the requirements in the Far East and in the Middle East, regarding careers in relation to variable geometry aircraft and to strike aircraft, and insinuations by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that he wanted some kind of force in the South Atlantic. From the defence debates earlier this year, all these things in my view mark an expenditure of the order of £4,200 million. I have done this calculation in good faith. It is easy for a back bench Member of Parliament to be wrong, but I want a proper calculation done by the Ministry of Defence of precisely what the Opposition are asking for.
It seems to me that the policy of the major Opposition comes to cloud cuckoo land and the British people have a right to know what is being suggested. One


cannot make commitments, even if they are fairly small, without costing them, so I ask my right hon. Friends that within the next two months they cost what the Opposition have asked for and let us know about it before July.

4.56 p.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: I have no intention of repeating all the arguments used on this side of the House on numerous occasions as to why we think the Territorials are a very important force which should be maintained. I want to refer briefly to the Government's persistent efforts to destroy the Territorials, and to something that has already been said about the misleading figures that the Under-Secretary gave the House on a previous occasion about T. & A.V.R. II and T. & A.V.R. III. I cannot understand the motives behind the Government's persistent vendetta against the Territorials. We can only guess what they are. The root of the Government's thinking can hardly be an attempt to economise, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), and as was suggested by the Front Bench opposite at the beginning of the debate. At under £3 million a year, even a Government keeping a stringent watch on Government expenditure would regard the Territorials as good value for money.
How a Government which is employing 59,000 more civil servants than any previous Government, at a cost of say £250 million a year, can argue that they cannot afford £2½, to £3 million a year for the Territorials beats me to pulp. That sum would pay for the Territorials for 100 years. This is nothing to do with economy at all. Nor can the Government's reason be one based on military considerations. It is an open secret that the weight of opinion in the Army Board strongly favours the retention of T. & A.V.R. III. This was not the case of a couple of years ago, but it is now the case and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to deny it.
Like my hon. Friends, I am utterly bemused by the argument that because the Government take the view that the nuclear threat is a great deal less than it was they can safely reduce our regular conventional forces, both those in the field and the Regular Reserves and the

Volunteer Reserves. This seems like a completely back-to-front argument. The nuclear threat is reduced, therefore we can do with reduced conventional forces! It may be that I am stupid, but I do not think that I am about this. I just do not understand, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to clear that up because it is important.
In recent weeks senior officers of the Metropolitan Police and the country constabularies have gone on record as saying that it would be "disastrous" to disband the Territorials especially at a time when in their opinion unrest and violence are on the increase. That is a tenable point of view and one with which I agree. Do the Government agree with it?
I can only assume that the Government's attitude towards the Territorials is compounded of prejudice and confused thinking. The decision to disband the Territorials must be regarded as yet another sweetener for the Left-wing of the Labour Party, which is totally absent from today's debate. The Left-wing has always had the strangest views about the maintenance of law and order.
Whatever the motives, the methods used to disband the Territorials, because that is still the plan, are pretty devious. I do not think that they are particularly reputable. The Government appear to regard their reversal of policy in 1965 and 1966, in the face of strong and clearly expressed public demand, as a concession, a generous gesture to the Territorials. I do not think that it was anything of the kind. I think that it was for practical reasons, not for sentimental ones, that the cry went up "Woodman spare that three"?
It was only too clear to many of us that the Government decided that instead of chopping the tree down it would be expedient to hack at its roots and so sap its strength that it would wither away and die of its own accord. That seems to be what the Government have set about doing. That is what we thought they might be doing three years ago to T. & A.V.R.III when we said that it was provided with such inadequate equipment, and so little training time, that that might result in its withering away. Some of us suspected that that is what the Government wanted. It looks as though we were right. The


Territorials were starved of proper equipment. They were robbed of a satisfying, worthwhile, and sensible réle. They were deprived of any bounty, and they were allowed only very limited training.
The Government waited for what they may have thought was inevitable, in their opinion, to happen. The tree would surely die. But the inevitable did not happen, and is not happening. The tree is flourishing and putting out new leaves and branches. In spite of all the clumsy efforts of the axeman the sap has continued to rise. The woodman did not cut through the tap root. The Government have been left with no possible grounds to justify their decision announced in January to abolish the force.
We were told at one moment that the Government decided to abolish the force, and the next moment we were told that they had decided to put it on a care and maintenance basis. Those two things are different, but the word "abolished" was, I think, used in January. I am glad that it has not been used today.

Mr. Reynolds: Disbanded.

Sir T. Beamish: Disbanded and abolished seem to me to be the same thing, and they are different from a care and maintenance basis. That is only playing with words.
It is odd that there was no consultation before the announcement to disband the Territorials. The Duke of Norfolk was called in at a few hours' notice and told that they were to be disbanded. Now for four months there has been consultation about how not to disband them. That is excellent, and we hope that the consultation which has begun will be successful in preserving a really worthwhile structure.
Grounds for disbanding the force had to be found, and I cannot help wondering whether that was the reason why the Under-Secretary of State misled the House with the recruiting trends in the volunteers and the Territorials. He must have had the correct figures which he was good enough to give me in reply to a Question on 25th April. If so, why did he say on that occasion:
The Volunteers have made good progress since they came into existence last year.
The Minister said today that they were in "good shape". I believe that they

are, but the impression that he gave was that recruiting was going well. He may not have meant to do so, but that was the impression he gave.
Yet according to figures that he gave us, on 25th April, 1968, at column 74, in reply to a written Question Volunteers have steadily declined in numbers since soon after the force was created. They went up at first from 36,000 to 38,000, but since then the numbers have dwindled for 9 or 10 months until now they are back where they started. Those are the facts, and I do not think that it was fair to tell the House that T. & A.V.R.II was making "good progress". I call that disappointing progress. It was a pity that the hon. Gentleman misled the House in that way.

Mr. Boyden: The figure for March, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not have had, has gone up, but the figures are much the same as they were. There was no attempt to mislead the House. I deduced the result as satisfactory. The hon. and gallant Gentleman deduced it as disappointing. The figures have been set out, and the recruiting season is to come. We can disagree on the interpretation, but I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should charge me with misleading the House.

Sir T. Beamish: I acquit the hon. Gentleman of deliberately misleading the House, but I assure him that he did mislead, and he annoyed many people in the Territorials and T. & A.V.R.II. A number of people were very cross about it because the hon. Gentleman went on to say:
A recruiting limit of 23,000 was set, though in the event numbers have reached only 15,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 483.]
What conclusions did we draw from that? We drew the conclusion that "good progress" had been made by the T. & A.V.R. II, and that the numbers were going up. We concluded too, that the opposite was true of T. & A.V.R. III, that it was not making good progress. The numbers had reached "only 15,000", and one assumed that the numbers were going down.
What are the facts? T. & A.V.R. III was created last April, with a strength of under 14,000. Some of its members


have left to join T. & A.V.R. II. T. & A.V.R. III grew throughout the year. Only in two months in 1967 was there any net loss. By December it had reached nearly 15,000. Those figures are not spectacular, but the trend was upwards. The rather disparaging remark about numbers reaching "only 15,000" was misleading. It misled a good many people in the Territorials. It was a pity that the hon. Gentleman used that phraseology, but I shall not labour the point any more. Perhaps it is a fruitless argument. Nevertheless, misleading figures were used as an argument for putting T. & A.V.R. III on a care and maintenance basis. I acquit the hon. Gentleman of deliberately misleading the House. If I said that he did, I went too far, but the figures were misleading, and the hon. Gentleman should have been more careful with his choice of words.
It may be that too many men, for reasons of work or domestic difficulties, cannot accept the high liabilities. Whatever the reasons, the Volunteers have not made good progress as we were told. The progress has been disappointing, though on the other hand T. & A.V.R. III, in the face of every conceivable frustration and discouragement, has sustained its enthusiasm and increased its strength.
The Under-Secretary mentioned some figures which he regarded as disappointing. I apologise if I did not write them down correctly. I scribbled down that 285 men from T. & A.V.R. III had joined T. & A.V.R. I and II and that about 100 had joined the Regular Army.

Mr. Boyden: indicated assent.

Sir T. Beamish: I do not call those figures bad. I call them quite encouraging. It must be remembered that this is at a time when regular recruiting is in the doldrums; it is in very poor condition indeed. Some men join T. & A.V.R. III and find their way into the Regular Army, which is always the case, and about 300 went from T. & A.V.R. III to T. & A.V.R. I and II. I call that quite good at a time when the net figures for T. & A.V.R.II have been falling. This is, perhaps, the opposite of what the Under-Secretary was seeking to prove. He and I may have an entirely different approach. It is very wrong to use figures like this

in such a way that people draw the wrong conclusion. I am trying to put those figures as well into their proper perspective. Both the public and the House are entitled to have an accurate picture of recruiting trends in the volunteer reserves so that they can fairly judge the Government's policy and plans.
In the present state of uncertainty in the world and while our regular forces are reduced to what I regard as dangerously low levels in comparison with our vital interests overseas, which have to be protected, and in comparison with the kind of contingencies which could so easily arise, it is my absolute and unalterable conviction that the Territorials cannot be spared. Not only do they offer the country excellent value for minimal cost. Not only is this trained, disciplined and versatile body of men needed to help meet any disasters that might arise, civilian or military. They are also an essential part of our military structure and an essential part of our insurance policy for the maintenance of an honourable peace.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: I regret that it is necessary to have this debate, first, because I, too, am very concerned that the T. & A.V.R.III should be disbanded, or even thought to be disbanded, and secondly, because, although in January we were told that it was to be disbanded and eight weeks ago we were told that negotiations were proceeding with the T.A. Council, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has not been able to say today what progress, if any, has been made along those lines to retain the force.
I believe that the damage to the Territorial Army was done two and a half years ago when it was decided—quite wrongly, in my view—to base our defence upon the atomic deterrent. I said so at the time. I say so again now. As hon. Members opposite have said, this view is being more and more canvassed in Europe today. I said that, if we once did away with the ability to raise a reserve army, we would for ever be dependent upon an atomic reply. I did not believe that that was possible. I believe that today the military thinking is that the possibilities are that there could be a prolonged conventional


struggle in Europe. We have not got the ability to do anything about it, because the only reserves we have are to plug up the gaps in the Regular Army. This is what I pointed out two and a half years ago.
In opposition my party maintained that we must depend upon conventional forces. As soon as it became the Government its thinking changed. As has been pointed out today, atomic deterrents are a very nice, easy thing on which to base one's defence. There is no need to do any thinking. One merely has to have the atomic response and everything else is solved. There is no need to think about whether reserve forces or civil defence are necessary. It is all so easy.
I accept that my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that their strategy is right. I think that they are misguided. I said two and a half years ago that the first and most important concern of a Government was the country's defence. All other things are subsidiary to that. Yet today we are incapable of raising any reserve force of any strength. If the thinking in 1966 was correct, that it was to be a matter of days during which there were atomic exchanges, why do we hear now about another 20,000 ground troops being earmarked for N.A.T.O.? Is it because the strategy was wrong? I do not know. I believe that it was. If what we were told in 1966 is to be the pattern of any future conflict in Europe, there would rot be an opportunity to get 20,000 troops over to Europe, so what is the point of earmarking them?
Another point I made at the time was this: if this is the concept of any future struggle, why do we continue to spend up to £40 million a year on conventional submarines which would not serve any purpose in such a struggle? This does not mean that I am advocating getting rid of the submarines. I do not accept the Government's thinking in this matter.
It is very easy to pay lip service to people who have served their country. That does not cost anything. I wonder why in January we were asked to scrap this force. I have my own reasons for thinking why this proposal was accepted. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary really wants the force to be destroyed. Was this part and parcel of something which, as has been

suggested, was to placate certain elements of my party? It is always very popular to be able to say when something unpleasant is being put forward, "But we are going to cut down the defence forces. We are going to take away these Territorial Army people who might well be used to keep down the workers ". These are the type of things that are said, as I pointed out in the debate in November 1966. I deplore this line of thinking, whether it comes from hon. Members opposite or from my own side; because this concerns people whose only concern is the country's defence. Too often in the past we have paid lip service to the service these people have given to Britain. At the same time we have axed them.
I do not believe that for £2·8 million what we are doing makes sense. I do not believe that we know what we are doing on defence on these lines. I would feel much happier about supporting my Government if only I could believe that they had a consistent policy that they were not fluctuating from one side to the other.
I have talked about the strategy in Europe and how 20,000 troops are earmarked to be used as reinforcements in an atomic war—when 20,000 troops will not be needed. In 1966 we were told that there was no purpose in anything other than a force to reinforce the Regular Army. Immediately afterwards we got the T. & A.V.R.III. Either it was necessary or it was not necessary. I, for one, do not admire a Government that give in to pressure and accept something that is not necessary. I was the one who brought the most pressure to bear from this side of the House. I would have respected the Government more if they had not accepted something afterwards, because at least I would have been able to say to myself, "At least they believe in what they are saying". On many occasions I have really thought that they have not believed in what they have said.
In January of this year the Prime Minister announced that it would be disbanded. That hurt me, but I was prepared to support my right hon. Friend's decision because while I believed, as I still believe, that there was a Civil Defence need for the T. & A.V.R.III, the damage was done two-and-a-half years ago from the point of


view of the reserve forces. Thus, we are really speaking about the side issues of the whole.
In March we were told that it was to be on a care and maintenance basis. In six weeks the Government have changed their mind from disbandment to care and maintenance. Now we are told that if the circumstances change we want to be able to enlarge the home defence forces. These circumstances, whatever they may be, did not exist, according to the Government, last January. How, therefore, can they change? I do not understand Government thinking on this matter.
I would have more respect for the Government if they would say clearly that pressure is being put on them by the Territorial Army Council and that they are having to do something about it. If, as a result, the Government are going to throw out sops, as they have done in the past, and make a pretence to keep on some of these organisations, I would rather they were honest and said, "The force is being disbanded; there is no purpose for it". If they said that we would at least know what they think, which is what I have been trying to discover. I still want to know what the Government think about the reserve forces.
I urge the Government not to give in to pressures if they have genuinely decided that certain policies are necessary. It does not make sense to change their mind from one month to another—to say, first, that there is no need for this type of force, then to say that it is being put on a care and maintenance basis and to follow that by saying that they want it so that they can expand it should the need arise.
As in other matters, I have criticised the Government for their inconsistency and lack of purpose. People do not mind how wrong one is as long as one sticks to what one has said. It is when one does the wrong thing and then changes one's mind and says, "That is what I intended to do in the first place" that people become critical. I urge the Government in all sincerity to reconsider this whole matter.
We have done away with the A.F.S. do not know if anything was actively

done to consider adding parts of the A.F.S. to the existing regular services at no extra expense. Nobody seems concerned about this sort of thing. It is a question of a Minister saying, "This is to be axed"—and then somebody else must sort out the issues. I accept the need for change in the various aspects of the reserve forces. We spend too much money on elaborate things; it must always be the best equipment and instead of having ordinary jeeps we must have enclosed vehicles and each must have wireless equipment.
Although I have been critical, I pay tribute to the reserve forces, and any one who has had anything to do with them knows that we have had the best reserves possible. Nobody can dispute that. I therefore urge the Government to reconsider this matter, particularly when they see the recruiting figures for the Regular Army going down. Is there not some connection between these lower recruiting figures and the fact that people are not joining the reserve forces because of the uncertainties? One is a good recruiting field for the other and there is no finer recruiting agent for the Regular Army than the man who is happy in the Territorial Army and whose son is considering making a career in the forces.
For these reasons, we are being foolish in considering an economy of £2·8 million through the disbandment of this force. Certainly there is need for change, but I urge the Ministers responsible to reconsider the matter and use what influence they have to persuade their colleagues to adopt a different line.
I believe that, in their hearts, the Ministers involved in today's debate consider that this force is needed. I appreciate the opposition that might be coming from other quarters. I ask them to fight it for the sake of something which I am sure they believe in and which has the support of hon. Members who have taken the trouble to be in the House for this debate.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) on the sincerity of his speech. It is deplorable that so few Ministers have been here to note his criticism of what I regard as a most lamentable story. Never in history has an economy been


perpetrated that has done such great damage to the spirit of the nation for so little financial excuse.
Like the hon. Member for Toxteth, I wish to dwell briefly on the history of this affair. In 1964 I was associated with a Territorial battalion with which I served both before and during, the war. Comparing 1964 with 1938, there was, the same woeful lack of equipment, but we were far better trained. There was closer integration between the Reserve forces and the Regular forces in 1964 than there had ever been in my early days as a Territorial. When the men of our Regular battalion were at home the Territorial battalion camped and trained with them. When they were abroad we sent details cut to the Regular battalion to train with them, and at home in uniform we were acting as recruiting agents for the Regular battalion.
Then the Labour Party came to power and decided to smash the Territorial Army. They succeeded in a feat which the Germans were never able to achieve during the operations in North Africa, Sicily and Europe. What of the state of the battalion today? One-sixth of it was allowed to join T. & A.V.R.II. The volunteer company of that battalion is far better equipped than we were in peace and during most of the last war. My experience of that volunteer company is that recruiting has gone well and is going well at present.
But for the remainder, five-sixths were cast out and then, at the last moment, T. & A.V.R.III was thrown at them rather in the way that a skinflint would throw a farthing in the face of a beggar. They were told that they could soldier on without a bounty, with out-of-date rifles and with insufficient transport. It was in those circumstances that these Territorials performed a miracle in that they made a success of it. Men from the steel industry of the North-East, the farms and the Post Office managed to become a disciplined body by sacrificing their own time and money.
Then, on 16th January, the Prime Minister made his great economy gimmick. As a political axeman he heaved his axe and it fell on the poor neglected T. & A.V.R.III. He announced that they would be put on a care and maintenance basis. But as they have not received any care from the Government nor had any

maintenance issued to them from the Ministry of Defence, the T.A. Council and the Ministry have been puzzling for all these four months about what was meant by the term.
Let me make clear that I regard this Motion as an understatement of the present position. I think it should be a great deal stronger. The Motion says that officers and men of the T. & A.V.R. III "can do training only at their own expense." I wish that they could. They are not even allowed to do that.
I give three examples of the attitude of the present Government to the T. & A.V.R. III, which the Government are trying so successfully to eliminate. The Territorial battalion in my county received an invitation from our sister regiment in Canada, the Queen's York Rangers, to go to Canada at its own expense to train there. The Ministry of Defence refused to allow the Territorial battalion to accept that invitation.
Secondly, the battalion wanted to train itself in competitive exercises and to go on the Nijmegen March to show what British volunteers can do under those conditions. The battalion was told that it could go, but not in uniform. What a ridiculous thing. When the Territorials wanted to show the spirit of their country in the Queen's uniform the Ministry of Defence refused to allow them to do so.
Thirdly, our Regular battalion is going into camp this year and has invited these Territorials to take part in the camp to train with them and to send volunteers at their own expense. Not a penny of the Ministry Vote would be involved. Every difficulty is put in the way of accepting that invitation. The amount of petrol to be allowed for all the vehicles—I agree that there are not very many—amounts to about three gallons a week. How does the Minister expect care and maintenance and training to go on at the men's own expense when so many obstacles are put in their way by the Ministry?
This is a very grave issue. In this country today there is more need for the encouragement of the voluntary spirit than ever before. I want young men to feel able to give something to their country in a disciplined way. I give a short illustration of a Territorial battalion which was smashed two years ago. The Pioneer platoon of one company found that there was a derelict church, the smallest church


in the North of England. It took the church over and, at its own expense—with no Army funds—renovated the whole church which was rededicated at a military service, to show what the Territorial Army could do to help the nation.
I am afraid that we shall always get such disasters as Aberfan and other natural disasters and we shall want a disciplined body of men to deal with them. I am too old and have had too much experience to believe that never again will there be the threat of war or attack. As an insurance we should have a disciplined body of volunteers ready to serve their country in an emergency. This is a very sad day. This Government have destroyed that body.
These men are still wanting to serve, chiefly in the hope that this Government will not last long. Then, they believe, they can be brought back into service. The Government should take a lesson from the local elections. One of the reasons why the electors have lost interest in this Government is that they have neglected the volunteer spirit. They have tried to destroy the Territorial links. I therefore hope that the Government will rue that lesson in the Division Lobby tonight.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: I have no wish to repeat the many arguments which have been made in this debate, but I support the Motion. I spoke on a similar subject in a debate in March, I have no fresh arguments to put forward, but I wish to repeat one or two points made in that debate.
No one disputes that the function of a Territorial or Reserve Army has changed. There is no need to return to the type of Territorial Army we had in the 1930s. The whole concept of strategy, weapons and everything else has changed since those days. Nevertheless, there is still great need for a reserve body of a sort. I said in the debate on 6th March:
I would be happy to see the Regular Army reduced to about 150,000, provided that was had behind it much larger reserve forces, whether in the form of the Territorial Army, or in the form of some other reserve."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1968, Vol. 760, c. 538.]
I think it is still obvious that the Territorial Army is a source of recruitment.

For that reason alone a very strong case can be made for maintaining it.
There is a real need for an outlet for voluntary service of an active kind requiring skill of mind and body and test of nerve and courage. Many men and women want this sort of voluntary outlet for service. Young people can find it, perhaps, by going overseas and taking part in one of the many voluntary aid activities which they can follow, but men and women in early married life, in their early thirties and forties, are not able to abandon their families and go to Botswana or other under-developed parts of the world. Such service as they can give can be only in this country. It is a tremendous waste if they are not given the opportunity to put that service into practice.
The Minister might consider the formation of a new kind of reserve such as that suggested by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw). He made a very good speech. I am entirely with him in the points he made, particularly about a reserve or emergency force of a new kind. It could deal with types of civil crisis which arise. There is no reason why it should not be incorporated with an auxiliary fire service, the Royal Observer Corps and, indeed, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. There is no reason why these voluntary forces should not be combined with a highly trained professional corps in some voluntary service which would give this necessary outlet for people.
I stress that it would have to have a professional highly trained corps to provide training and continuity, but the rank and file could be provided by part-time volunteers. So even if the Minister has made up his mind that there is no future function for the type of Territorial Army or reserve which we have had for the past three or four decades, please would he give his mind to the possibility of establishing a new kind of reserve force, an emergency force which could be used to meet all the kinds of civil crisis which could arise and would give an outlet to those who want to give voluntary service?

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I join the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) in congratulating the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) on his courageous speech, one of many which he


has made in defence debates. He pointed out the changes of mind and attitude of this Government on the Reserves in the last two and a half to three years, yet this afternoon the Under-Secretary again talked with breathtaking certainty about what would or would not be needed in the event of hostilities.
This Government do not even know how many votes they will get from their own supporters on the Prices and Incomes Bill, or whether they will survive in Parliament over the next few weeks. Yet the Under-Secretary can say with absolute certainty how many logistic units will be needed in Germany in the event of hostilities. We know that there has been a number of conflicts in the world recently. We took part in one, in Aden. There has been Vietnam, Nigeria and the conflict on the borders of Israel, the course of each conflict taking a turn which the military experts did not expect. Yet the experts here can say with absolute certainty how many logistic units will be needed in Germany.
We can be certain of some things—that our allies on the Continent and in the United States are putting much more energy and resources than before into the formation of reserves, and that Mr. McNamara, in his farewell address as Defence Secretary, said that the enlargement of the mobilisation base in Europe was the highest priority for N.A.T.O. Yet this Government are cutting away at our own mobilisation base.
We also know that the Reserve forces are astonishingly good value for money. Although not many months old, T. & A.V.R.III has already given service, after the "Torrey Canyon" and Aberfan disasters and the foot-and-mouth epidemic, and has assisted after the hurricane in Glasgow. Yet the entire cost of the Reserves to the Government is less than the cost of one of the cancelled F111Ks.
The volunteer spirit of the men in the Territorial forces remains. We have heard many examples of those who are anxious to continue to serve and those who are serving despite considerable financial sacrifice. There is a case in my own constituency where, as in every other constituency, the Government have disbanded the civil defence organisation. Yet many of the volunteers have

decided to keep the organisation in existence and to defray the cost themselves, so that they can continue to serve the community.
We know that that spirit of service goes on through the Territorial Army, and it is a tragedy that the Under-Secretary had to say yet again that, far from encouraging it, the Government are persisting in their policy of doing all they can to destroy it.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Tom Boardman: With one possible exception, every speaker has spoken with the same voice, in condemning the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) said that there was no precedent for an unpaid, unequipped force of volunteers carrying on. He is perhaps wrong, because history records that there were many regiments of yeomanry—mine for one—which were formed well before the beginning of the century at their own expense, providing their own horses and equipment to come to the aid of the country in times of emergency.
There was a common feature. All those cases arose because the Government of the day had so neglected the country's defence that the volunteers were necessary to fill the gap—

Mr. John Tilney: I would remind my hon. Friend that it also happened in 1930–31, entirely due to the inept financial policy of the Socialist Government who were then in charge of this nation's well-being.

Mr. Boardman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. That shows the pattern. Here again is a case in which the defence of the country against possible danger rests on the patriotism and spirit of the territorial volunteers. The common factor is the incompetence of the Government of the day in making the necessary provisions.
It has been asked whether we need a civilian army. So many arguments have been put forward from this side and in the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw)—I echo the praise for the courageous way in which he has spoken out many times on this subject—that I will not rehearse them. Suffice it to say that the changes


in Government strategy and thinking between March, 1965, and March, 1968, emphasise the need for these reserves. They cannot have it both ways. Either they depend on the nuclear deterrent, which they have now said is not so, when of course we need this force for home defence and aid to the civil power, or they depend upon the conventional forces, as they now say, in which case we must have the reserves to reinforce them.
The Under-Secretary of State said that we were taking some small risk. It was said in March that it was a risk small enough for the Government to cut out the home defence. Presumably it is some calculated risk, but I wonder how many of us have much confidence in this Government's calculations.
One perhaps surprising feature of the debate is that it is two months since we last discussed this subject. Two months is about the cycle for the complete reversal of the present Government's policy. I rather expected that another somersault would be performed today. Instead, there has been a change in tone, in emphasis.
What we have not been told is what the Defence chiefs think of this, or what the chief constables think. In March I asked whether the Minister had consulted chief constables throughout the country to find out their attitude towards the matter. The Minister did not reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) asked him a little later whether he had then consulted the chief constables, and he was told "no". Why have not they been consulted? If they have been consulted, will the Minister tell us what their attitude is and what is the attitude of those Associations which have the responsibility for the formation of the T. & A.V.R.I and T. & A.V.R.II units? Would they welcome the abolition of T. & A.V.R.III? I am sure the answer he will receive is that they wish the T. & A.V.R.III to be retained in order to support and provide a firm basis for T. & A.V.R.I & II, just as the chiefs of staff in the Regular Army will also say that they need and want it as a base for recruiting and for supplementing the reserves of the Regular Army.
The Minister said in opening that we were relying on the excellent reserves

that the Army has with the new T. & A.V.R.I and T. & A.V.R.II. I do not doubt that they are a credit to the people manning those regiments and units, but where are the uncommitted reserves? Each of those units is committed to a specific task. Any general will tell the Minister that the one essential thing one must have is uncommitted reserves before one enters a particular campaign or is faced with a crisis.
We do not say, and it has never been suggested here, that T. & A.V.R.III would form a force to go into the field immediately, but it is a disciplined force trained in basic military tactics to provide at a time of crisis a reserve which can reasonably rapidly be made available to supplement the Regular forces and the T. & A.V.R.II.
On the question of cost, we have already had some discussion of figures. If the Minister is really suggesting that T. & A.V.R.III is to be destroyed solely on the ground of cost, he should spell out the figures with a little more accuracy. The cost of retaining T. & A.V.R.III as it was is £2·2 million, according to an Answer given in March, not £2·8 million or £3 million, as was said today. But I challenge whether there is a saving of even that comparatively small sum. I do not suggest that £2·2 million is a small figure to be ignored. It is a big sum of money, but it must be viewed against the whole background of Government expenditure. An extra £1,000 million is being spent by the Government this year, and in that context we must consider whether we are right to allow this reserve force to go for what is comparative chickenfeed when viewed against the Socialist extravagance we witness day after day.
I ask the hon. Gentleman, in doing his sums on this matter, to take account of what will be the cost of putting these units on a care and maintenance basis. What will be the cost of the additional recruiting advertising and so on, which I believe will be necessary if we are to replace, if it is possible to replace, the recruiting arising from T. & A.V.R.III. What will be the cost of keeping open the drill halls which will be used only for the other units but would in many cases be available for T. & A.V.R.III at no additional cost? I hope that the Minister will do his sums right through


and finish up by saying what economy would be achieved by destroying this invaluable reserve force.
I ask him also to consider the damage done during the five months of uncertainty. Has it been necessary to take five months to make a decision? As the hon. Member for Toxteth said, the reason for this cut was not the one which was given but—and the hon. Gentleman perhaps did not spell out clearly the inference of that—it was a political sop to hon. Members opposite below the Gangway, so that they would accept charges and cuts which were otherwise unpalatable to them. I think that it was a horse deal, and it is contemptible that that should have been done.
The reason for the delay now in making a firm announcement for the future is the Minister's hope that the T. & A.V.R.III, without equipment and without pay, will be eroded and die, without the Government having to make a decision. This is a typical, contemptible act. It shows lack of courage on the part of the Socialists to make a decision and face up to it. I hope that when the Minister replies we shall hear that a decision will be made and announced which will preserve for this country a reserve force which I consider essential to our national security.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: The House is discussing what I consider to be a most serious and important issue, the question of opportunity for serving our country. At this moment, seven other debates are taking place in the House upstairs. But even though they range over such vitally important matters to our country and countrymen as finance, the Transport Bill, the Divorce Reform Bill and other matters, it is in this Chamber that we are touching on something of tremendous importance to the spirit which has motivated our countrymen throughout our history. I hope that the Minister will take note of the seriousness which has been expressed on both sides of the House.
I was greatly impressed by the serious and urgent plea of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) that in striving for economy the Government should not lose such a valuable thing as the Territorial Army. Similar pleas have been made from this side of the House.
This is not really a party occasion. It is an occasion to ask the Government to consider seriously what is really at stake when they make cuts affecting our country so deeply. It has been said more than once in the debate that the inevitability of nuclear warfare is no longer the premise for all military prognostication, and that we must today face the problems of protracted conventional warfare in our consideration of our future strategic defence problems.
I do not think that 1938 was so different from 1968. In 1938 I learned to be a soldier in the Territorial Army. I learned for a year before the war began, and never saw or handled a rifle; I learned to handle a sword. It may sound ridiculous, but I was serving in a yeomanry regiment. We did not have rifles, so short were we of equipment.
I joined the Territorial Army in London, in 1938. I went to war in civilian clothes because there were no Army uniforms for that rush of volunteers who went to the service of their country when they felt it was in need. I went to war not even with a sword but with a spade and for two weeks dug trenches on the Essex coast.
But I learned three things that year in the Territorial Army. First, I leant about simple military organisation, secondly, about discipline, and, thirdly, about service. The dissimilarity between 1938 and 1968 is that, in 1938, there was somewhere for people to go when they felt that their country needed their services, whereas in 1968 and from now there will be nowhere a man can go to serve his country and to give something of himself to the discipline and the simple military organisation necessary.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) back in his place. I always respect his contributions to our debates but I felt that he sneered at the voluntary services.

Mr. Dalyell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Crouch: The hon. Gentleman gave the impression of sneering at the contribution which the Territorial Army can make.

Mr. Dalyell: I must make it clear that I did not sneer. I asked simple questions about operational requirements.

Mr. Crouch: The hon. Gentleman spoke of volunteers serving for pleasure


and enjoyment. I see nothing wrong in finding pleasure in serving one's country. I enjoyed serving my country. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Territorial Army as an unnecessary force and of the great problem of the disposal of drill halls. What has developed in the debate since he spoke is not the problem of disposal of drill halls nor, indeed, that the T.A. is an unnecessary service. It is rather that underneath the T.A. is a breeding ground for the spirit of service and for giving something to one's country. This sounds frightfully jingoistic but I mean it most sincerely.
Do the Government genuinely consider that we cannot afford to maintain some reserves, even if they sneer at the military capability of such reserves and even if they consider that such reserves as the Territorial Army could produce could not be mobilised and developed and perfected quickly enough in an emergency? Do they really believe that we cannot afford £2·8 million a year on this?
But is not the reserve we are really talking about a reserve of the spirit? Are we not clearly arguing about the maintenance of the spirit of service, to give us something to fall back on? I believe that we may well require the use of conventional forces. It is not difficult to see that a conflagration could happen in Europe. The possibility is not confined to South-East Asia, Malaysia and so on. Such a conflagration could last for a long period and could be sustained with conventional forces without escalating into the tragic use of nuclear weapons.
If there were such a conflagration, and it were sustained with conventional forces, we should not be able to fall back and draw on our reserves—reserves of the spirit and of trained volunteers. It will be disastrous if the Government proceed with their policy towards the Territorial Army. To disband it is to destroy it. But the Government will not succeed, however much money they may save, in disbanding the volunteer spirit which exists and will continue to exist.
I believe that there is a prejudice on the benches opposite against the organised volunteer Army. It is not unusual to hear hon. Members opposite discounting the volunteer soldier and the keen amateur. We cannot afford not to

reassess the whole strategic concept of the defence tasks we may have to face. We cannot afford not to revalue the part which the voluntary spirit can play in our military plans in future. We cannot afford not to stockpile some reserves of service and discipline in our continuous need to prepare for the defence of our country and freedom.

6.06 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I bitterly resent the fact that we have to hold such a debate, for if the Government had acted in the national interest, it would not have been necessary. As has been pointed out by my hon. and right hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), the Government have weakened the position of Britain.

Mr. Reynolds: indicated dissent.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: One of the things which have emerged from the debate is that the entire House is antagonistic to the Government's policy towards the Territorial Reserves. I believe that the policy is the result of a deal made by the Secretary of State with the Left-wing. If that is not so, there is very little reason for the policy. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State is not getting advice from his military advisers that the state of our reserves is extremely poor and must be rectified. He is obviously resisting that advice.
There seems to be a general change in thinking and strategy at the moment. The nuclear deterrent is not as credible as it has been in the past. This has been made clear by Mr. Robert MacNamara and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in a newspaper article some weeks ago when he was spokesman on defence for the Opposition. This change of thinking and of policy is not only here but in N.A.T.O. and the United States as well. There is a movement away from the concept that we have the nuclear deterrent and need not worry.
If we are moving into the realm of the possibility of conventional wars, however small, it is essential that our conventional forces be strengthened and that there should be properly trained and organised reserve forces. Admittedly,


only a crude and elementary training could be given in the initial stages to volunteer reserve soldiers but even this is to disappear with the disbandment of the whole framework for possible expansion of our forces. It is an appalling and catastrophic situation.
If this is the new thinking in the West then it shows that either the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friends are completely incapable of understanding what the strategic concepts of 1968 and the seventies should and could be, or that they are completely derelict in their duty to the country. I must be charitable and assume that the former is the reason.
It is a pity that the enthusiasm which undoubtedly exists is being frittered away. I saw an example of this enthusiasm in my own part of the world last week when the volunteers, without pay, lined the station yard for Her Majesty the Queen when she visited the area last Friday. Those same volunteers will go to camp, unpaid, this summer to do training, because they wish to do so. Yet the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are willingly and wantonly throwing away this enthusiasm and I condemn them for it. Everything that has been said in this debate shows that the way the Government are behaving towards these men is shameful. There is a tremendous fund of enthusiasm, and the spirit and the wish to give service to this country are not dead. Many people want to find a method of showing their patriotism, and this is one of the finest ways of doing so, by strengthening our military conventional forces and helping the country to fulfil its role.
The hon. Member for Toxteth put forward the detailed arguments clearly and constructively, and I agree with almost every word he said. In the face of the criticism we have heard, in this debate, I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can allow this position to continue. I warn the right hon. Gentleman, let him not under-rate the anger which exists among young men, and those of us who are a little older who have served our country and who wish to continue to do so. We are angered at the way in which this Government are behaving. The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends will rue it before very long.

6.12 p.m.

Sir Frank Pearson: I should first like to join with many of my hon. Friends in paying tribute to the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw). He said that Government policies on defence went very wrong two and a half years ago. I recollect well the debate when those decisions were taken, and I recollect the speech of the hon. Member for Toxteth at that time, since I had the pleasure of following him. He made as bold and forthright a speech as he made today, and he carried his convictions with him into the Lobby afterwards. I hope that will happen again tonight.
Many of the strictures which he made against the Government are absolutely correct, and they add up to the fact that the defence policies of the Government have been totally dishonest from the word go. This is not a debate in which we should touch on the wider aspects of defence policy, but it is worth noting that the Government's defence policies have never gone right since the day when they fixed a financial limit to the amount that they were prepared to spend on defence. Ever since that day their defence policies have been an effort to squeeze their necessary expenditure below this totally false and totally artificial limit.
The justification for the abolition of the Class III Territorial Reserves, in addition to the general policy of squeeze, is merely short-term economic necessity. It is scandalous that a long-term defence policy such as the maintenance of the voluntary Territorial Reserves is surrendered almost entirely in toto for purely short-term economic considerations.
Quite apart from economic aspects, there has been a gross miscalculation of the basis on which defence should rest. The Government came to power nearly three years ago believing fervently that there would be no clash in Europe that would have to be faced in their lifetime. They had the concept of withdrawal from east of Suez into the confines of this country, which would place us in much the same position as Sweden. Gradually they found, as the realities of the situation unfolded in front of them, that there was a demand for a far greater commitment. Even since they produced


their last White Paper, in which they made the decision to cut down the Reserves, the situation in Europe has altered. It could not have been a happy sight for them to see Russian tanks rolling through Poland towards the borders of Czechoslovakia. It cannot be a happy thought that the Russian Navy now controls the eastern end of the Mediterranean. These factors have seriously altered the situation.
I would challenge whether the Government have made up their minds to follow a nuclear strategy, or whether they are following a conventional strategy. When the Under-Secretary came to the Dispatch Box today, he seemed to consider, for the first time in years, that a clash in Europe might be a possibility for which we had to make arrangements.
May I ask a question which I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will answer? What are our total Reserves in this country today, and to what theatre of war are they committed? Are they all committed to B.A.O.R.? I believe that is the situation, and I should be glad if the Minister would confirm it. If that is so, were there to be a clash in Europe we should have no Reserves available in this country.
This brings me to the main point of the debate, the category III Reservists. Does the Minister think, if there were a clash in Europe, that this country would survive on a stable basis if we had not some body of troops in uniform to support the civil power? We have seen many disturbances in our towns in recent times, in peacetime. We have seen what can happen in America in peacetime. We know what happened to the civil population in Liverpool during the last war. The Government know that the civil population would not have been held at that time had it not been for the uniformed Reserves.
It is therefore totally irresponsible for the Government, while they are contemplating operations in Europe, to say that they can completely abolish the civilian reserve at home. Of course they cannot.
I hope that I interpreted the hon. Gentleman's speech aright when he said that they were having second thoughts and were thinking about a care and

maintenance basis. I hope that term may be interpreted in a flexible way. When the Government come to work out what care and maintenance means they will find that for the extra £.1½ million or so they can, more or less, leave the Reserves as they are at the moment.
I think that the Under-Secretary also said that there was no hurry, that he would consider the matter, but that there was no urgency. Does that mean that he intends merely to let the reserves wither away? Will he let them go to their camps, pay their own expenses and watch them do it, paying tribute to them for their loyalty and magnanimity? Is he hoping in the long term that they will become "browned off" and disband themselves, so that he will be left with no problem to solve? If that is not his intention, he must come to a decision very early on, and he should.
It was amazing that the Under-Secretary of State spoke to us for about 20 minutes without once mentioning the reason why the Government had decided to put the Territorial Reserves on to a care and maintenance basis. No justification was given for what was a basic change, which is what the whole debate is about. We did not hear a word about it. I hope that the Minister of Defence for Administration will be a little more forthcoming and tell us why we are now putting the Class III Reserves on to a care and maintenance basis. What are the considerations? Has the pressure eased from his hon. Friends below the Gangway? Has the strategic situation altered? Has the pressure of the Territorial Associations been too great? Let us know why it has happened. We have not been told yet, and we want to know before the end of the debate, because it is right that we should be told. I hope that he will tell us.
Quite apart from any strategic arguments, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) made the point that the Territorial Reserves cannot be separated into watertight compartments. The Class III and Class II reserves are interdependent. One will not thrive without the other.
The whole idea of voluntary service appears to be called in question. I hope that hon. Members opposite are not against it as such. Sometimes I think that they are. I think that they like to


see nicely graded civil servants paid by and under the control of the Government, and resent the idea of a body of civilians giving voluntary service free, gratis and for nothing. I hope that that is not so, but sometimes I think that it is.
The arguments in favour of voluntary reserves have been put with force and clarity from this side of the House. To date, we have not been told what the real situation is. I believe that the House can rightly demand to be told with a certain degree of honesty what is in the Minister's mind, and I hope that he will tell us.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) talked about a clash in Europe, and he referred to Russian tanks going into Czechoslovakia. It is true that Europe is a disturbing place, but no one can forecast what might happen there.
At the back of the hon. Gentleman's mind is the fact that we must prepare for a war with the Soviet Union. That is a gigantic enterprise in which the question of whether the Territorial organisations shall exist is almost irrelevant. I cannot imagine a war in Europe in which Russia and the N.A.T.O. forces are engaged being anything other than a nuclear war of massive destruction. If that is not the case, why do we spend so much on nuclear weapons?
I understand that the argument is that we must prepare for a sequel to the last war, in which infantry plays a leading part, and ignore the fact that we are living in an age of nuclear weapons in which this country could be destroyed in the first few hours if hostilities materialised. However well-meaning and public-spirited hon. Gentlemen are who have been associated with the Territorial Army in the past, their arguments become totally irrelevant in the event of such a war.

Mr. Crouch: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the Americans have not been unwise in maintaining conventional forces in the last 20 years?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: All I know is that America now boasts of the enormous destructive power that she could inflict on the Soviet Union in a matter of

minutes. If we are to think about a modern war, with all its terrible consequences, we must think of something quite different from the last war, and that is what hon. Members opposite do not appreciate, however well meaning they may be.
The Americans say that they have now a very great destructive power over the Soviet Union. Casually reading the reports of modern military commentators, it is clear that no one except those who are living in the past really thinks that there is a possibility of a so-called "clash" in Europe. None of the military commentators thinks in those terms.
Then again, if we face the possibility of this old concept of an infantry and aerial war, why does this country spend so much on destructive weapons? We have the Polaris submarine programme. We are told that the justification for it is that it is a deterrent and that two or three salvoes from a nuclear submarine would be more destructive than all the bombardments of the last war.
That is the kind of war which people contemplate, if they contemplate it at all. These movements and rehearsals for something that is not likely to come off and, if it does, will not he like the rehearsals, should be looked at against the background of a country striving to exist economically. I have stressed this argument repeatedly during the Service debates. In the debate on the Army Estimates, I proposed to reduce the Army by the token figure of 1,000 men. That was greeted with disapproval from the Government. They thought that I was acting irresponsibly.
A fortnight later, I went to the other place and heard that distinguished military authority, Lord Montgomery. Instead of reducing the Army by 1,000, he wanted to reduce it by 83,000 men. I listened carefully to his arguments, and it is clear that we are living in a time of complete unreality if we encourage well-meaning and elderly gentlemen who still think in terms of the advances on Germany in the last war. The reason for this is economic. During the past few months we have heard a lot about the need for reducing public expenditure, but when any serious attempt is made to look over the expenditure of the defence services hon. Gentlemen say that we must


increase it again. So they resist every attempt by the Government to prune their defence expenditure.
I agree with neither the Motion nor the Amendment. I believe that the Government have not gone far enough. The Amendment is couched in terms of appeasement of the elderly gentlemen who are thinking in terms of the next war. I believe that a good deal of the manpower that is now locked up in the defence forces could be better utilised in fighting the real enemies of this country. Who are the real enemies of the people I represent? Who are the real enemies of the people in Scotland? It is not the Russians, it is not the Germans: it is the gangsters. I am not speaking ideologically on the question of capitalism and Socialism. Everybody knows that in Glasgow the real enemies of the people are those who stab and kill and murder in the streets, and it is impossible to get police because so much manpower is locked up in the forces in Germany.
I want to take the people out of the Army where they are engaged in preparing to fight an imaginary enemy and put them in a position to fight the enemy on their own doorsteps and on their home ground. Anybody who knows Glasgow knows that at present people are in danger because of the lack of police. If any of the gentlemen in the Territorial Army, if they are young enough, physically fit and ready to serve their country, would like to put their services at the disposal of the community to defend their people against these enemies they would be welcomed at the headquarters of the Glasgow police force.
Anybody who knows the situation in Scotland knows that it is true that there is violence and that this can be dealt with only by increasing the power of the civil police. If hon. Gentlemen want to encourage people who are thinking in terms of military organisation, they should encourage them to go from the Territorial Army to work with the civil authority and fight the real enemy.

Mr. James Dempsey: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it might be a start if we encouraged members of the Forces who might wish to give their services to the community to join the special constables and supplement the existing army of

police in their struggle against the gangsters and others who commit acts of violence in Scotland?

Mr. Hughes: That is precisely my argument. I know that there are soldiers in B.A.O.R. in Germany at the present time who read their papers and know that their own people at home—their wives and children and sweethearts—are likely to be shot, stabbed or murdered by the enemy at home. So I say that this is a debate in which there is a great deal of unreality, and I find myself unable to support the Motion or the Government.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: If ever the weight of argument were decisive in this House, there is no doubt at all which way the vote would go this evening. We have had a series of powerful speeches from this side of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch)—speech after speech attacking and exposing the Government's policy in this matter. From the other side we had three speeches, of which the first two really cancelled each other out and the third cancelled itself out. That is the only contribution we have had this afternoon.
Before I start on a summary of the arguments, I should like to express this view. I think that we should have been told why the Secretary of State himself is not here for this debate. It is the second time that this has happened. We had a debate last week touching the matter of Service pensions, and he was not here then either. I know that the Secretary of State has many immensely important things to do but I think it is a matter of courtesy to the House that he should tell us why he is not here. However important the things he has to do, there can be nothing more important than the question of the Reserve Army or the pensions of the Armed Services of the Crown.

Mr. Reynolds: May I just make it perfectly clear to the right hon. Gentleman that last week my right hon. Friend


was at a Ministerial meeting at The Hague, I think it was, and he is now in the Mediterranean on a long-arranged visit to British troops there. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that my right hon. Friend could not have been expected to cancel a visit of that character as late as last Thursday when we heard of this debate.

Mr. Maudling: I accept that, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman should have told us about this or arranged for us to be told. This is a matter to which we attach a considerable amount of importance.
The basic argument between the two sides today is the question of the Reserve Army, the adequacy of our Reserves and the position of the volunteer Reserves. This is the main point upon which we shall be dividing the House this evening, but there are many others: the chopping and changing and uncertainty of Government policy, the shabby treatment of the men involved and the affront—because I think it is that—to the whole spirit of voluntary service. These issues have been brought up time and again in the speeches made from both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) put very clearly indeed the effect upon the morale of our Services of the constant changes in Government policy and the apparent fact that Government action in these matters is determined more by shifting considerations of policy than by continuous and sustained conviction. Then there is the treatment of the volunteers themselves, going to drills and to camps without any help whatsoever, not even insured, I believe, against accidents which may occur when they are training. This point was expressed extremely clearly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone, backed up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. I hope very much that the Minister will answer the points he made about Nijmegen, about Canada and about the volunteers going to camp with the Regulars. These were three very important points raised by my right hon. Friend and there has been plenty of time to discover the answers, so I hope we shall be hearing further in the winding-up speech.
Thirdly, there was the whole question of the voluntary spirit, its preservation in

this country and its contribution to the life and health of our society, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and by others. All these are questions which have been raised in this debate and which must be answered if any adequate answer is to be given to the House this evening.
But the main issue is the position of the reserve Forces, therefore I will take the Government's Amendment, upon which we shall be voting in a short time. It starts, of course, with a tribute to the Territorial Army. I think this is a rather audacious effort from the Government at the present moment, but nevertheless it is a tribute which both sides of the House would willingly accept. Then it passes on to the volunteer Reserves categories I and II and stresses their high level of equipment and training. Once again, of course, we agree, but the point is that their size is not adequate and their numbers are melting away. In opening, the Under-Secretary made some rather curious remarks about the numbers of category II Reservists. So far as I can see from the figures he gave, although he says that they have no statistical significance, the fact is that they have been dropping month by month. I was brought up to believe that although one month's figures may be meaningless, a steady trend, month after month, is the most significant thing statistically that one can hope to find.
I do not know what his figures for March are, but the hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that in March things got a lot better. The figures show that the category II Reserve fell by 320 in March and overall, taking all categories of Reserve, it was about the worst month that the Territorials had ever had.

Mr. Boyden: Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot say that. Even if he takes the maximum difference in the figures he cannot say that the forces are melting away.

Mr. Maudling: The figures month by month are there and after the initial increase in May and June, 1967, the monthly fall was 40, 13, 120, 282, 308, 387 and 282. If that is not a trend, then I have never seen one. The reason for the falls is quite clear, and it is linked with the position of T. & A.V.R. III. The


tasks assigned to category II are sometimes unglamorous and possibly unattractive. Secondly, and very important, the number of places where they can carry out their duties are more and more limited. There is a definite limit on the distance that people can be expected to go to attend parades or training. We link the two categories, II and III, as the Under-Secretary said on 6th March. He repeated that category III acted as a recruiting agent for category II, and that the two were very much bound together.
Then we come to category III. In the Government's Amendment there is the most extraordinary waffle that I have seen for a long time. They are to disband this as an active force, whatever that means, but to continue discussions,
…aimed at preserving as much as possible of the regimental titles, skills and permanent assets…
of category III. What in the world can this possibly mean? What is the purpose of it? What will be the use of empty regimental titles, with nothing solid behind them? What is meant by "as much as possible"?
The possibility here is simply a matter of money, nothing else. If the Government provide the money, everything could be preserved. If they do not, then nothing can be preserved. It has nothing to do with possibilities; it is a question of what the Government are prepared to spend. It seems to be a very small sum indeed. The Minister replied to an intervention of mine, saying that the original estimate of the saving was £2·8 million. That has been shaved quite a bit since then, and will have to be shaved a good deal more if there is any reality at all in the Government's Amendment. This sum of money, although important, is tiny in relation to the whole defence budget.
The Minister took the usual line of, "What would the Opposition do to save money? Cut the social services?", and all that sort of stuff. It is probably lucky for him that the national papers were not published this morning, because if they had been, one of the main stories would have been that last year the increase in the railway deficit was £19 million. This is a Government who

have nationalised industries publishing figures of this kind, yet who cannot afford a sum of £1 million to £2 million for a vital area of national defence.
We must have more from the Government about what is meant by preserving skills and permanent assets. How does one preserve people's skills unless such skills can be used and practised? How can they be, unless there is some organisation in which to do this? Has this any meaning whatever, and if so will the Minister please tell us? What about permanent assets? What permanent assets? The drill halls? If this is so, that is fine, but if the drill halls are to be preserved what happens to the Government's economies? However one looks at this Amendment, it does not stand examination and that is why we intend to vote against it this evening.
Once units are disbanded, officers and N.C.O.s gone, they cannot easily be recalled. This is a fundamental point. There is nothing in this Amendment, in the "continuing as much as possible…permanent assets" and so on, that adds any strength at all to the Reserve Forces. This is the main reason why we criticise the Government. Without category III and its facilities, category II people will continue to drain away. Without category III our Reserves are really inadequate.
I know that it is said that these domestic tasks for which category II was set up have disappeared. I do not quite know why, because it is only a short time ago that the Government thought they needed this force in support of the civil power.
That is only part of the argument. We believe that a basis for expansion in war is essential and it will not be available without category III. I ask the Government not to be so dogmatic about the sort of dangers that the country will have to face. It is all very well for the Under-Secretary to declare that certain wars will not happen. It is all very well for him to say that there is only one certain threat in future, and the Government have decided what that threat will be, therefore any other forces are not needed.
The threat is not decided by us, but by others, and the Government cannot claim any great precision in their predictions in the past about the sort of trends


and dangers that would face the country. Our Reserves will be very small indeed in comparison with other major European countries. Regular Reserves are about 65,000, and if categories I and II are added we have about another 35,000. France has 450,000 plus reservists, West Germany 750,000 trained reservists, Italy 600,000, and even Portugal and Turkey 500,000 apiece.
Our Reserves are totally out of line. It may be argued by the Minister, if he wants to be clever, "Oh you are asking for conscription". I am asking for nothing of the sort and he knows it. It is true that the structure of our military establishment has varied for a long while from that of other countries, but the stark contrast between the reserves of other countries and those which we apparently have available, when we all of us are facing the same threat, is remarkable. Quite apart from Europe, what about the need to maintain some of our obligations outside Europe, east of Suez for example? For three years to come even this Government intend to carry out our obligations to our friends and allies. They constantly maintain that, even after that period, they will have some sort of presence or force available to help our friends and allies east of Suez.
Our obligations, even on their own showing, are not purely continental and therefore, looking at the totality of our forces, both active and reserve, we must compare Britain's obligations with the obligations of the European countries. I fear that the comparison will lead us to doubt very much whether, without the volunteer reserve, category III, our Reserves will be up to what the nation requires. Our main condemnation of the Government is that, for a piffling economy in theory and a political advantage in practice, they are doing away with a vital part of Britain's defence mechanism.
The spirit of voluntary service in this country is something of which we are all proud. We are going through difficult times, and the ordinary person is baffled and bewildered by his inability to influence the decisions which affect his whole life, his inability to know how he can contribute directly to the fortunes of his country. The "Backing Britain" campaign was an attempt to do some-

thing to help Britain which ran into the sand, to everyone's regret. Let us not do away with any possible outlet for the voluntary spirit of the men and women of Britain, in the interests, not only of defence, but in the higher interests of the quality of the society in which we live.

6.48 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): As did the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), I should like to begin by referring to the first two lines of the Government Amendment. I accept from him that both sides of the House realise that it is almost exactly the sixtieth anniversary of the formation of the Territorial Army which sprung from a major reorganisation of reserves at that time, causing a row which has made the rows of the last two years seem like very small beer in this House and elsewhere.
The T.A. and the T. & A.V.R. now depend, depended and will depend on people prepared to volunteer, on people with a spirit of service, ready to help the community in a way that they choose in the community's time of need. Voluntary service is something that changes as the years go by. There was a terrific amount of voluntary service of all kinds taking place 60 years ago, when the Territorial Army was formed. Some of this has now completely disappeared.
Other forms of voluntary social service have changed. The spirit of voluntary service, nevertheless, I feel is the same. But the avenues into which that spirit has to be guided and directed have changed considerably over the last 60 years and will, I think, change considerably over the next 10 or 20 years. No one on this side of the House wishes to decry the voluntary spirit. We depend upon it in our social services, in our defence, and in pretty well every aspect of our public life. But the tasks to be done by volunteers are changing. We have to face the fact that there will be change just as much in defence as in the social services, local government, and in other spheres.
In going round Territorial Army units, both before October, 1964, and since, I quickly became aware that the vast majority of people in officers' and sergeants' messes and other ranks realise that what they were doing in October,


1964, was to a large extent completely out of date and that the time had come for a major change.
One thing which surprises me is that we should be having this debate. It is just over two months since we went over all the ground which has been gone over today. Nothing new has been said in to-day's debate. The only thing which has been noticeable is that the Government Whips have had to scurry round to persuade enough people to come in to keep it going until 7 o'clock when people will turn up for a Division—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I meant the Opposition Whips. It was hardly a slip of the tongue, because a Government Whip came to me and said, "Do you think that we should help them by keeping it going until 7 o'clock? It does not look as if they can do it." When one has a censure Motion one expects people to queue up to speak on it. Opposition Whips should not have to drag them in, and Government Whips should not have to get people in to keep it going until 7 o'clock.
This debate is being held at a time when it is known by hon. Gentlemen opposite that we are having discussions with representatives of the T.A. Council. Even today I have received the latest proposals from the T.A. Council in a lengthy document which so far I have had a chance to read through only once. There are a number of arguments in it which I accept and a number of points that I want to discuss over the next few weeks with representatives of the Council. The fact that this was going on was known to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. The only thing which will happen as a result of the debate and the Amendment which is down is that it is bound to harden attitudes on both sides and in our negotiations which have been going on during the last few weeks—[Interruption.]—if the hon. Gentleman who has just come in had been here during the rest of the debate I might have given way.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Mr. Percy Grieve (Solihull) rose—

Mr. Reynolds: The same applies to the back row.
One thing which surprised me was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet should accuse us of being

dogmatic concerning defence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—"Hear hear", say hon. Gentlemen who walked into the Lobby in 1957 to support the most dogmatic statement on defence ever produced by any Government in 25 years. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government and he supported it. I am not sure whether he was in the Treasury at that time. If so, he was undoubtedly looking at the amount of money to be saved. I am surprised to find an ex-Chancellor turning his nose up slightingly at a saving of £2·8 million. I have no doubt that his colleagues who were with him in the past never heard him refer to £2·8 million as a small sum at that time. We see a lot of changes in three years when people go from the Treasury Bench to the other side of the House. Incidentally, I ought to congratulate the right hon. Member for Barnet on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box as the Shadow Minister of Defence.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the position concerning reserves was unsatisfactory. He quoted the larger numbers of reserves available to some of our N.A.T.O. allies. He is well aware that the reason why we have smaller reserves is because the Government, of which he was a leading Member, abolished conscription some years ago. It is a fine thing to get up now to try to blame the present Government for the fact that our reserves are smaller than other N.A.T.O. countries when the sole reason for that is a decision to which the right hon. Gentleman was a party many years ago.

Mr. Maudling: My argument was that it was foolish to reduce our reserves even more.

Mr. Reynolds: That is a good slip round, but it does not carry any weight here or in the country.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he did not think that categories I and II of the T. & A.V.R. were adequate. He referred to the fact that they were declining, as did the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) and the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) who opened the debate. It depends where the figures are taken from. If one takes figures from the end of April last year, the figures


are indeed lower than at the end of April. If one takes figures from 1st April last year one can argue that the figures are now higher than at 1st April. If one looks at less than one year after recruiting, there has always been, and will continue to be, in the T. & A.V.R. a decline in numbers. The recuiting season, as the figures show, is March, April, May and June. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are aware of that. The numbers went up in those months last year and I am confident that in the months now leading up to the annual camp the recruits will begin to come in again, as has been traditional with the Territorial Army for many years. It makes a big difference whether they have an attractive or an unattractive camp. Many of them this year—a much bigger proportion than before—will be going to attractive camps. I hope that this will have an effect on the numbers of recruits who will come in in the recruiting season which we are now approaching.
The right hon. Member for Barnet asked whether we had, over the next three years, sufficient reserves to cope with any responsibilities east of Suez that we might have during that period. He will be aware that, in the discussions on the Territorial Army reorganisation, which we had a couple of years ago, it was pointed out that the T. & A.V.R.II in both its major categories was designed for two main purposes. One was to back up the Regular Army in the event of a limited war. This was previously the responsibility of the Army Emergency Reserves I and II. The other main function was to back up the Regular Army in the event of a general war in Europe. A sufficient number of mainly logistic units are there to back up the Regular Forces in anything which might happen east of Suez or anywhere else.
I could not understand some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Harrogate. He did not answer my intervention. He was trying to argue that, if we maintain three infantry units, these will be of great assistance in manning some of the logistic units which we require in the order of battle.
At this stage I should give some information about some of these logistic units to which reference has been made slightly scornfully by some hon. Gentlemen

opposite during the course of the debate. Some hon. Gentlemen seem to have got it into their heads that people are only interested in joining glamorous things such as the Yeomanry, infantry and perhaps the gunners. But there a number who have willingly joined many of the unpopular logistic units. R.E.M.E. units in category II A are recruited to 84 per cent. of their establishment at the present time. Other figures are: infantry 79 per cent., Royal Armoured Corps 87 per cent.; artillery 85 per cent.; Royal Engineers 71 per cent. But when one comes down the list a bit further one will find between 65 and 70 per cent. applies to most.
As my hon. Friend has said, the reason why we costed the whole thing on the basis of 80 per cent. recruitment is because we were fully aware that the medical units were unlikely to recruit to the required percentage. This is unfortunate. We are desperately short of people in medical units. I hope that we can improve the situation in the not-too-distant future
One hon. Gentleman asked for details about Ever Readies, which are technically referred to as the Special Army Volunteer Reservists. There are 131 officers and 1,770 soldiers in that group, plus another 524 Regular Reservists, There is plenty of room in that force for hundreds more if they are prepared to take up that liability.
I should now like to come to what was said by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr Hugh Fraser). He made one of the most amazing speeches I have ever heard in the collection of amazing speeches that he has made. He concentrated most of the time on lashing out at obsequious generals and bumbling boffins and civil servants in the Ministry of Defence. They are not the persons to attack if he disagrees with what is being done by Her Majesty's Government. When he reads tomorrow what he said today, I am sure that he will be ashamed of the attack that he made on people who are not in a position to answer back as are other Ministers and myself.
He criticised the Government for making reductions in the Territorial Army. He was the Under-Secretary of State for War in about 1958. He knew at that time that the Territorial Army needed a


radical reorganisation if it was to be an effective force. He refused however to do anything about it and the reason was that he was not prepared to face the attacks he would get from his own people if he took the matter into his own hands and did something he knew was unsound in their eyes.
Then he went into the Air Force Department which is so different. There are not so many vested interests in the Air Force, say the Tory benches. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned their pilots and made sneering reference to the fact that three years is needed to train a pilot. A lot must have changed in the Army since he was connected with it if he thinks that it is possible to train an infantryman in a matter of days. What can be done if things are kept on a reasonable basis is to train someone into the T. & A.V.R.III in a comparatively short period of time. This is the position the Government are going to try to create so far as the T. & A.V.R.III is concerned. He abolished at the same time all the R.A.F. regiments in the Reserve.
It is useless to talk about extending a large citizen army, by which one means the old Territorial Army, if one is not prepared to face the fact that in order for ground forces to be effective one has to retain extensive forces in the air as well. We never hear anything about that from hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they mention that people will know that means tens of millions of pounds.
The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes remarked that 59,000 extra civil servants will cost £250 million a year. I suggest he does his figures again. [Interruption.] The Opposition have

now returned to vote. They have not been here to listen to the debate, but they now interrupt at this time.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet said that he does not know what is meant by the reference in the Government Amendment "…to continue discussions" with the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations. I would suggest he reads my speech of 6th March where I pointed out that, so far as home defence and civil defence is concerned, the Home Secretary has said it was necessary to preserve a core of knowledge and experience; and to make sure that local authorities will continue planning at the local level to enable more active work to be resumed. It is our intention to operate on similar lines.

I have received proposals only today which I will consider with my right hon. Friend and we shall make our announcement in due course about the position. I cannot say when that will be. The last time we were criticised about making a statement on Reserves before making a statement on the Regular Forces. It could take some considerable time before we are in a position to make a detailed decision on what is going to happen to the T. & A.V.R.III. This is being done as quickly as possible. Discussions which I am having with the T.A. Association will enable us to work something out. I do not believe this debate has helped towards finding a proper and correct solution to this problem.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 239.

Division No. 140.]
AYES
[7.7 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Albu, Austen
Binns, John
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bishop, E. S.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Alldritt, Walter
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Allen, Scholefield
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cant, R. B.


Anderson, Donald
Booth, Albert
Carmichael, Neil


Archer, Peter
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Armstrong, Ernest
Boyden, James
Chapman, Donald


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Coe, Denis


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bradley, Tom
Coleman, Donald


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Conlan, Bernard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brooks, Edwin
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Barnes, Michael
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Barnett, Joel
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Cronin, John


Baxter, William
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Beaney, Alan
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bence, Cyril
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Buchan, Norman
Dalyell, Tam




Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Park, Trevor


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dell, Edmund
Judd, Frank
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dempsey, James
Kelley, Richard
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Dewar, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dickens, James
Kerr, Dr. David (W' worth, Central)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Probert, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Lawson, George
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Driberg, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted
Randall, Harry


Dunn, James A.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rankin, John


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rees, Merlyn


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, John (Reading)
Reynolds, G. W.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Eadie, Alex
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Richard, Ivor


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Ellis, John
Lipton, Marcus
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ennals, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Ensor, David
Loughlin, Charles
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Luard, Evan
Roebuck, Roy


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rose, Paul


Fernyhough, E.
McBride, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCann, John
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacColl, James
Ryan, John


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacDermot, Niall
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Foley, Maurice
Macdonald, A. H.
Sheldon, Robert


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Ford, Ben
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Forrester, John
Mackie, John
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fowler, Gerry
Mackintosh, John P.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Freeson, Reginald
McMillan Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McNamara, J. Kevin
Skeffington, Arthur


Gardner, Tony
MacPherson, Malcolm
Slater, Joseph


Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Small, William


Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Snow, Julian


Gourley, Harry
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Manuel, Archie
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Gregory, Arnold
Mapp, Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Marks, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marquand, David
Swingler, Stephen


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Taverne, Dick


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maxwell, Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Hamling, William
Mayhew, Christopher
Thornton, Ernest


Hannan, William
Mellish. Rt. Hn. Robert
Tinn, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mendelson, J. J.
Tomney, Frank


Haseldine, Norman
Mikardo, Ian
Urwin, T. W.


Hattersley, Roy
Millan, Bruce
Varley, Eric G.


Hazell, Bert
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Heffer, Eric S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Henig, Stanley
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Moonman, Eric
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hilton, W. S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Weitzman, David


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wellbeloved, James


Horner, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland
Whitaker, Ben


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
White, Mrs. Eirene


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Murray, Albert
Whitlock, William


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Neal, Harold
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Howie, W.
Newens, Stan
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hoy, James
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Huckfield, Leslie
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Ogden, Eric
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach, Maurice
Winnick, David


Hunter, Adam
Orme, Stanley
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hynd, John
Oswald, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Irvine, Sir Arthur
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Yates, Victor


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)



Janner, Sir Barnett
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Jeger, George (Goole)

Mr. J. D. Concannon.







Noes


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gower, Raymond
Neave, Airey


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant, Anthony
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Astor, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Onslow, Cranley


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Awdry, Daniel
Grieve, Percy
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Balniel, Lord
Gurden, Harold
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pardoe, John


Batsford, Brian
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Percival, Ian


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Peyton, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pink, R. Bonner


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bessell, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biffen, John
Hastings, Stephen
Prior, J. M. L.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Francis


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hay, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Blaker, Peter
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Boardman, Tom
Heseltine, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Body, Richard
Higgins, Terence L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hiley, Joseph
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hill, J. E. B.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Julian


Braine, Bernard
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hooson, Emlyn
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hordern, Peter
Royle, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hornby, Richard
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howell, David (Guildford)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Bryan, Paul
Hunt, John
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Scott, Nicholas


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bullus, Sir Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sharples, Richard


Burden, F. A.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Campbell, Gordon
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Silvester, Frederick


Carlisle, Mark
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Sinclair, Sir George


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Cary, Sir Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W 'minster)


Channon, H. P. G.
Jopling, Michael
Speed, Keith


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stainton, Keith


Clark, Henry
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Stodart, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Cooke, Robert
Kimball, Marcus
Tapsell, Peter


Cordle, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Corfield, F. V.
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Costain, A. P.
Lambton, Viscount
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Teeling, Sir William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Lane, David
Temple, John M.


Crouch, David
Langford-Holt Sir John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Crowder, F. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tilney, John


Currie, G. B. H.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dance, James
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Longden, Gilbert
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lubbock, Eric
Vickers, Dame Joan


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
MacArthur, Ian
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Wall, Patrick


Doughty, Charles
McMaster, Stanley
Walters, Dennis


Drayson, G. B.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Ward, Dame Irene


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maddan, Martin
Weatherill, Bernard


Eden, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Webster, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Emery, Peter
Marten, Neil
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Eyre, Reginald
Maude, Angus
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Farr, John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fisher, Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Miscampbell, Norman
Woodnutt, Mark


Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Worsley, Marcus


Gibson-Watt, David
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Montgomery, Fergus



Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glyn, Sir Richard
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Jasper More.


Goodhart, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Goodhew, Victor

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 238.

Division No. 141.]
AYES
[7.20 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ellis, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Albu, Austen
Ennals, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ensor, David
Lee, John (Reading)


Alldritt, Walter
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Allen, Scholefield
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Anderson, Donald
Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Archer, Peter
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Armstrong, Ernest
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lipton, Marcus


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lomas, Kenneth


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Foley, Maurice
Luard, Evan


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Barnes, Michael
Ford, Ben
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Barnett, Joel
Forrester, John
McCann, John


Baxter, William
Fowler, Gerry
MacColl, James


Beaney, Alan
Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacDermot, Niall


Bence, Cyril
Freeson, Reginald
Macdonald, A. H.


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Galpern, Sir Myer
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Bidwell, Sydney
Gardner, Tony
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)


Binns, John
Garrett, W. E.
Mackie, John


Bishop, E. S.
Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gourley, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Booth, Albert
Gregory, Arnold
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Boyden, James
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bradley, Tom
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Manuel, Archie


Brooks, Edwin
Hamling, William
Mapp, Charles


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hannan, William
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Harper, Joseph
Marquand, David


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Haseldine, Norman
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hattersley, Roy
Maxwell, Robert


Buchan, Norman
Hazell, Bert
Mayhew, Christopher


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish. Rt. Hn. Robert


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Henig, Stanley
Mendelson, J. J.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mikardo, Ian


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hilton, W. S.
Millan, Bruce


Cant, R. B.
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Carmichael, Neil
Horner, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Chapman, Donald
Howarth Harry (Wellingborough)
Moonman, Eric


Coe, Denis
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Coleman, Donald
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Conlan, Bernard
Howie, W.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hoy, James
Moyle, Roland


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cronin, John
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, Albert


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Neal, Harold


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Newens, Stan


Cullen, Mrs, Alice
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Dalyell, Tam
Hunter, Adam
Noel-Baker,Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hynd, John
Oakes, Gordon


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Irvine, Sir Arthur
Ogden, Erie


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Orbach, Maurice


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Orme, Stanley


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Delargy, Hugh
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Dell, Edmund
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Paget, R. T.


Dempsey, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Dewar, Donald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Park, Trevor


Dickens, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dobson, Ray
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pavitt, Laurence


Driberg, Tom
Judd, Frank
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dunn, James A.
Kelley, Richard
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dunnett, Jack
Kenyon, Clifford
Pentland, Norman


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp;C'b'e)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leadbitter, Ted
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)




Price, William (Rugby)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Probert, Arthur
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Weitzman, David


Randall, Harry
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wellbeloved, James


Rankin, John
Skeffington, Arthur
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Rees, Merlyn
Slater, Joseph
Whitaker, Ben


Reynolds, G. W.
Small, William
White, Mrs. Eirene


Rhodes. Geoffrey
Snow, Julian
Whitlock, William


Richard, Ivor
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Swingler, Stephen
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Taverne, Dick
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Roebuck, Roy
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Winnick, David


Rose, Paul
Thornton, Ernest
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Tinn, James
Woof, Robert


Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Tomney, Frank
Wyatt, Woodrow


Ryan, John
Urwin, T. W.
Yates, Victor


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Varley, Eric G.



Sheldon, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Mr. Neil McBride and


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Mr. J. D. Concannon.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Iremonger, T. L.


Astor, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Awdry, Daniel
Doughty, Charles
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Drayson, G. B.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Balniel, Lord
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Eden, Sir John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Batsford, Brian
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jopling, Michael


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Emery, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bell, Ronald
Eyre, Reginald
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Farr, John
Kershaw, Anthony


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Fisher, Nigel
Kimball, Marcus


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bessell, Peter
Fortescue, Tim
Kitson, Timothy


Biffen, John
Foster, Sir John
Lambton, Viscount


Biggs-Davison, John
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Galbraith, Hn. T. G
Lane, David


Black, Sir Cyril
Gibson-Watt, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Boardman, Tom
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Body, Richard
Glyn, Sir Richard
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Goodhart, Philip
Longden, Gilbert


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Goodhew, Victor
Lubbock, Eric


Braine, Bernard
Gower, Raymond
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Brewis, John
Grant, Anthony
MacArthur, Ian


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Gresham Cooke, R.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grieve, Percy
McMaster, Stanley


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Bryan, Paul
Gurden, Harold
Madden, Martin


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maginnis, John E.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Marten, Neil


Burden, F. A.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus


Campbell, Gordon
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Carlisle, Mark
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Cary, Sir Robert
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman


Clark, Henry
Hay, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Clegg, Walter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Monro, Hector


Cooke, Robert
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Montgomery, Fergus


Cordle, John
Heseltine, Michael
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Corfield, F. V.
Higgins, Terence L.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Costain, A. P.
Hiley, Joseph
Murton, Oscar


Craddock, Sir Beresferd (Spelthorne)
Hill, J. E. B.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Hirst, Geoffrey
Neave, Airey


Crouch, David
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Nicholls, Sir Harmer


Crowder, F. P.
Holland, Philip
Onslow, Cranley


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hooson, Emlyn
Orr. Capt. L. P. S.


Currie, G. B. H.
Hordern, Peter
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Dance, James
Hornby, Richard
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hunt, John
Pardoe, John







Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Scott, Nicholas
Vickers, Dame Joan


Percival, Ian
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Peyton. John
Sharples, Richard
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Pink, R. Bonner
Silvester, Frederick
Wall, Patrick


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Sinclair, Sir George
Walters, Dennis


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Prior, J. M. L.
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Weatherill, Bernard


Pym, Francis
Speed, Keith
Webster, David


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stainton, Keith
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Ramsden. Rt. Hn. James
Stodart, Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Rees-Davies, W, R.
Tapsell, Peter
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Ridsdale, Julian
Teeling, Sir William
Woodnutt, Mark


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Temple, John M.
Worsley, Marcus


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wylie, N. R.


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy



Royle, Anthony
Tilney, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Russell, Sir Ronald
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


St. John Stevas, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Jasper Mare.


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Resolved,
That this House expresses appreciation to all officers and men who have given such unstinting service to the Territorial Army and Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserves in peace and war during the last 60 years; believes that the establishment of Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserves I and II has provided the best equipped and trained volunteer reserve

that has ever been available for the regular army and supports Her Majesty's Government's decision to disband Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve III as an active force but to continue discussions with the Council of Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations aimed at preserving as much as possible of the regimental titles, skills and permanent assets of Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve III.

FISHING INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McCann.]

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Although this will necessarily be a short debate, it is about a matter of immense gravity and is held on the initiative of the Opposition. I will confine my remarks solely to the facts and my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) will comment on what I hope will be an important statement which the Minister will make.
At this stage I merely repeat that it would have been more convenient for the House if the Minister had found it possible to answer a Question earlier so that we might have had time to reflect on what he has to say. First, however, I do not believe that any hon. Member can sit in the comfort of this Chamber without thinking of what a lot of very brave men suffered off Iceland not many months ago.
The fishing fleets have been having extremely difficult times for many years. In 1967—the last year for which results are available—in not one port where trawlers are based and in not one section of the fleet was a surplus shown after depreciation had been deducted—even at the modest rate of 6⅔per cent.—and a heavy, I would say staggering, loss per day was made by all sections.
This is the season when the heaviest supplies of fish come on the market, and I believe—I do not want to appear an apostle of gloom—that things will get worse rather than better in the immediate future because imports in the first quarter of this year were up by 18 per cent. on the same period of last year and because vessels are going out of commission at what I regard as an alarming and, alas, increasing pace. The searchlights have been playing on the situation in Hull and Grimsby. For their sake, I wish that it was not so. In July of last year, when we had a debate in the House, the British Trawler Federation's memorandum contained a paragraph saying:
To all appearances at least the Scottish fishing industry, especially the Scottish trawling industry, is relatively prosperous.

It might have been more realistic had it said "is relatively less depressed". Perhaps what was said then was true, but we should tonight take a cool, hard look at the position now. This is not a time for wishful thinking or blinking at unpleasant facts. I am against presenting an exaggerated case and therefore, if I spend a while dealing with the Scottish fleet's problems, this may serve to highlight those of the distant water section, the plight of which is even worse.
In 1967 the Scottish trawling fleet, the bulk of which is based at Aberdeen but a section of which is at Granton in my constituency, showed a "profit" of £863,000, of which the subsidy came to £206,000, and therefore, without the subsidy, there was a "profit" of £657,000. But the "profit" of excluded any depreciation, so that the figure of £657,000 was a paper one. Charge the depreciation of £770,000, even at the modest and unrealistic rate of 6⅔ per cent., and the real, hard facts show a loss of more than £100,000. That was the true commercial figure which was turned into a profit only by the injection of £206,000 of subsidy.
It would be foolish for me to condemn subsidies in principle, and I should be laying myself open to all sorts of attack if I were to do so. However, I have always pointed out the flimsiness of a structure the very foundation of which is subsidised, for the good reason that subsidence can only too easily take place.
I have no doubt that there are isolated instances in farming where the subsidies drawn amount to twice the figure of the commercial loss incurred without them, but the figure I have given is for the whole Scottish trawling fleet last year and not for a few individual vessels—and this at a time when the haddock brood has been far better than anybody expected. One can only wonder what the position would have been if the haddock catch had been what it was four or five years ago.
As for the industry's debts, in March, 1968, the arrears brought forward from October, 1967, were £346,000, and for the half-year up to March, 1968, a further £338,000 are due, making a total of £684,000.
I return now to the industry in the United Kingdom as a whole. What are


the prospects for it? First, there is, I think, the inevitable reduction—if I am wrong about the inevitability of this I am sure that the Minister will correct me—in the subsidy each year of between 7½ per cent. and 12½ per cent. By 1972 the subsidy element is scheduled to have disappeared. We are half way through the period—from 1962 to 1972—with only 42½ per cent. of the subsidy so far gone. In other words, we have been running under the average rate of reduction. Will the cuts in the next five years of necessity have to be at the maximum of 12½ per cent.
The conception of eliminating subsidies might have been possible if all the other circumstances had played fair with the industry. Let all know that the fishing fleets of this country are as efficient as any others in the world. However, they are faced with the inexorability of rising costs. Crews are entitled to receive higher wages—and I am glad to say that they are getting them—and insurance premiums are now going up by about £900 per vessel, and there is also what is described as an almost doubling of the excess. This, in motor car terms, means that where the first £15 of any damage had to be paid, you are now going to have to pay £30. There are inevitably to be additional costs imposed on the industry by the Transport Bill. No Minister has yet been able to give the House an assessment of what those costs will mean.
We have to face the fact that the proceeds from first-hand sales are now turning against the catchers. It is significant that the imports of white fish were down in weight between 1961 and 1966, but they were up by over 50 per cent. in value. That, I suspect, was due to the increased importing of frozen processed fillets. Do the Government think that we can go on spending money in this way when, to put it bluntly, those imports are knocking hell out of our fleets?
The Parliamentary Secretary made a very categorical remark on the subject of subsidies in the debate on 26th July last year. He said:
If countries abroad are undercutting our own industry in certain ways by subsidies, we shall take action to protect it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1967; Vol. 751, c. 691.]
I hope that one of the things he will tell us tonight is that he will put those words

into action because the operating subsidy in 1967 for the British fleet was £1,500,000—less than 4 per cent. of the value of the output of the catchers. Compare that with the subsidy given to the Norwegian fleet. It is between five and 10 times as much in proportion. When the 1967 drop in prices took place the Norwegian subsidies were jacked up to the equivalent of £3 per head of their population, which presumably must have brought them into the vicinity of £15 million.
I therefore await anxiously but expectantly as a proverbial optimist what the hon. Gentleman has to tell us. The review has been in progress for a very long time. It is not unfair to say that its initiation is shrouded in the mists of time long past. Whatever action the Government propose, it must not be of the same tempo as the review has been. The Government have to mount a rescue operation with great urgency. There must be nothing leisurely about it. If legislation is required, I hope the Government will bring it speedily to the House. I should have thought they were bound to do so, as I understand that the next cut in the subsidy will fall due at the end of July. I do not think the industry can stand that.
I suggest the following four possibilities. First, action must be taken against imports unfairly subsidised. Secondly, the situation whereby this country allows imports utterly and completely ad lib while all our competitors impose restrictions quite rigorously, must come to an end. Thirdly, the supplementary subsidies, amounting to £350,000 a year, are inadequate and much too rigid. We want them to be much more flexible. Fourthly, there has to be an injection of subsidy to arrest the decline.
Hon. Members may think, after what I have said about subsidies, that that may sound contradictory, but I believe it is the only remedy available, short-term, in a very desperate situation. There has to be a long-term look with the industry at the contribution it is to make to the nation's economy. To make that contribution it must be allowed to earn the return which is necessary on a high risk investment—which, goodness knows, this is. Britain without its fishing fleets does not bear contemplation, but unless action is taken swiftly that is what will face the


country before long. Therefore, in what I hope has been a non-partisan spirit which has characterised all the debates I have attended on the fishing industry, I call on the Government to act urgently tonight.

7.45 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): Far be it from me to introduce party politics into the fishing industry, but I must remind the House that every complaint made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) tonight was a complaint against the policy for which he was responsible. If the industry is suffering—and I do not deny it—that flows from the policy laid down by the hon. Gentleman's Government in 1962. The hon. Member has spoken about the industry being in a bad way, but I remind him that in 1962 it was in an equally bad way. The writing was on the wall then. The hon. Member conveniently forgets that the Government of the day had to grant a moratorium on repayments because the industry was in such a bad condition. The hon. Member cannot deny that for it is a fact.
We are faced today with the policy laid down in 1962. The hon. Member has spoken about cuts over a 10-year period. That also was laid down in the Act of 1962, which said that the subsidy would have to diminish and run out by 1972. The industry was then regarded by the party opposite as becoming self-sufficient. It may be that that referred to the fishing industry as a whole, but the hon. Member will agree that the industry and the Government of the day agreed on that.

Mr. Patrick Wall: And the Opposition of the day.

Mr. Hoy: No. If the industry and the Government came to that conclusion who am I to dispute it although I did not have great faith in it? I am on record as saying that. I want to put this matter in its proper perspective. We might well have made a statement earlier, but it might have been equally convenient to have delayed a little longer. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West I want to make as comprehensive a statement as possible. I also associate myself with what he said about the disasters in the industry. If anything happens to the

industry in any part of the country it affects the industry as a whole.
Many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, I shall therefore not take much time, but I wish to assure the House that the Government fully realise the pressing problems of the industry, notably those of the deep sea fleet. We have been in close touch with the various sections of the catching industry. We met the leaders of the trawler owners only yesterday and I know their anxieties. I also accept that it has taken a long time to carry out the review of policy. It was undertaken by my right hon. Friend some time before the present difficulties arose. We have reason to be grateful for his foresight.
When the Estimates Committee made its Sixth Report at the beginning of 1967, it did not expect the industry to run into the problem it now faces. These have come to a head and they have to be reckoned with. No one who knows the industry and the way in which its fortunes fluctuate would suggest that its problems admit of either quick or easy solutions. It was necessary to study the problems in depth if we were to find the right solutions and we were faced with a rapidly changing situation. To assess the effect of devaluation alone was a major exercise.
I propose now to give the House a brief account of the problems identified in our review of policy and the measures we have in mind to meet them. First, the industry as a whole, and the deep sea industry in particular, is subject to adverse conditions of competition. These are beyond its control and very largely beyond the control of this or any Government. Yields have declined with the pressure of foreign competition on the fishing grounds and the deep sea fleet has been excluded by the extension of foreign fishery limits from many of the richest grounds for which its vessels were built.
Secondly, other countries even more dependent than Britain on fishing have developed their coastal fisheries and they find here an open market for their export surpluses. This is a consequence of our general trading policies, not only during the years of this Government, but over all the years. I do not want to say more about it tonight. I merely want to record this fact.
Thirdly, the development of quick freezing has led to a build up of large stocks of fish in frozen form which would have gone for fishmeal a few years ago. Not only do these stocks exist, but they enter far more readily than wet fish into international trade. They have severely depressed the major consuming markets of the world including our own.
This depression has applied particularly to the market for deep sea cod with which frozen fish is directly competitive.
Although the volume of deep sea landings in 1967 was maintained at the average level of about 520,000 tons achieved in 1965 and 1966, prices have fallen and the value of the catch has declined from £41·2 million to £39·4 million while costs have been rising. There is a serious risk of a decline in catching capacity. The inshore industry has suffered less than the deep sea industry, because it depends more on varieties and qualities of fresh fish with which frozen fish is less competitive. It is no accident that the deep sea industries of our neighbours are in a similar plight to our own.
As I said, our predecessors in office cannot entirely avoid the responsibility for the trading conditions with which the industry is now faced. But I do not blame them so much for that. The only regret I have is the policy they handed down to us.
Much of the writing was on the wall in 1962. But they chose to rely on the hope—it was no more than a hope—that, despite all the signs, the deep sea industry could dispense with Government support by 1972. What is more they went on, despite our warnings, to pass into a law a programme of automatic subsidy reductions for 10 years ahead.
It is this obstacle that has frustrated us in trying to help the industry and compelled us to consider not merely the policy but the legislation that is needed before we can help. Hon. Members opposite should reflect on their responsibility for the present impasse before urging the Government to resolve it.
I come now to the measures we have in mind to deal with the problems I have outlined. Some we can take immediately; others, for the reason I have given, require legislation. These will be the subject of further consultation with the industry; and I cannot, therefore, announce final decisions on them tonight.
It is clear that in present circumstances the continuation of the present policy laid down in 1961 following the Fleck Report is inadequate to prevent a decline in the deep sea industry's contribution to the nation's fish supplies and therefore in its contribution to import saving. We are satisfied that the industry could make an increasing contribution to our supplies and to import saving, given the assurance of an adequate measure of Government support, in conjunction with a continuing improvement in the industry's efficiency.
We therefore propose to bring to an end the automatic reduction year by year of operating subsidies to the deep sea fleet imposed by the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1962, and to give the industry an assurance of continued support for a period of several years. The precise form and level of operating subsidy, the method by which it should be adjusted from year to year, and the basis of payment, will be determined in the light of our usual analysis of the industry's profitability, which is now proceeding, and after consultation with the industry.
The House will know that legislation will be required to give effect to the change I have mentioned in subsidy arrangements; and we will make a further statement about the timing and substance of it at the first opportunity.

Mr. Stodart: The hon. Gentleman said—I thought quite deliberately—that this would affect the deep water fleet. Does he exclude the middle water fleet?

Mr. Hoy: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to wait. Obviously we are talking about the middle, deep water and inshore fleets. I shall say something about them later.
I recognise the desirability, in view of the situation in the fishing industry, of bringing this legislation before the House with the least delay so that action may be taken as soon as possible. Meanwhile we want to encourage the investment that is required to achieve increased efficiency and import saving. We therefore propose to remove the scrapping restrictions on the approval of grants for new deep sea vessels. This was recommended in the Sixth Report from the Estimates Committee.
I turn now to the inshore and herring fleets. We look to this section of the industry for a substantial contribution


to import saving. To this end, we propose to remove existing restrictions on grants and loans for inshore and herring vessels in line with the policy for the deep sea fleet. We also propose to increase the overall limit on the value of these grants and loans from 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the gross cost of a vessel. This will mean an immediate increase in the maximum loan from 40 per cent. to 45 per cent.
The operating subsidies to the inshore and herring fleets are not subject to automatic reduction and will continue to be reviewed annually in the light of their profitability, their importance to local economies, and the import-saving objective.
I should like to say a little more on the question of efficiency. There has been much criticism of the industry in recent months, much of it based on superficial impressions and much of it far from constructive or realistic. Our fishing industry does one of the most difficult, risky and unrewarding jobs to be found anywhere in the country. It makes for its size an exceptional contribution to the balance of payments, both on exports and on import-saving. So far as the evidence exists for making meaningful comparisons, it is as efficient as any comparable fishing industry in Western Europe.
Having said this, I would go on to say that there is room for improvement and a need for improvement, if the industry is to meet succesfully its conditions of competition and justify the support of the taxpayer. I do not believe there is any failure in the industry to recognise this fact. There is also an increasing recognition of the value of research and development into catching and handling techniques. There is a readiness to invest in new and more efficient ships and to improve old ones, given the prospect of a reasonable return, which is essential to any investment.
There is also a need for improvements in the structure of the industry to secure more effective management and training, and for further economic research, particularly into the marketing and distribution of fish. The measures we propose are intended to encourage progress on these lines. We want them to have the

maximum impact on efficiency, and this is one important purpose of the discussions I have mentioned.
I do not under-rate the urgency of all this and the House must not under-rate the difficulties. But we must be sure that when help is given it is effective. We expect that the measures we are taking will give the industry the support and confidence it needs both to increase its efficiency and its vital contribution to the national economy.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I realise that the debate is chiefly concerned with the deep water fleet, but I wish to speak very briefly about the inshore fishermen. I also realise that a Committee is sitting, and I hope that the Government may be able to tell us a little of what sort of report they hope to get from it. No doubt the answers to some of my questions will have to await that report.
The industry will be grateful for what the Minister said. It will welcome his assurance that the subsidies for the deep water fleet are not to be run down any further, and that there is to be support after 1972. The removal of restrictions on the inshore fleet will be very welcome. It is very necessary in the North of Scotland to build up a fleet, and this will be a help. The announcement of increased loans and grants will help the industry.
The Minister is on the right lines in stressing that the smaller boats are partly a social problem; they are very important to the local economy in certain parts of Scotland. But they can also, as can the bigger boats, make a substantial contribution to our balance of trade.
In the north of Scotland we have been fortunate in some of the schemes promoted by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, both in the Hebrides and Orkney, and we look forward to an increase in general employment from inshore fishing, both at sea and on shore. But so far this has very usefully brought in a certain amount of fairly small boats and has done some very useful training of crews. These boats must look for part of their income to shellfish, including molluscs, and I wonder whether the Government have any further information about the stocks of shellfish. It is very difficult to find out what is happening


to lobsters and some sorts of molluscs, and any information on that will be welcome.
There are still complaints about trawling on certain grounds fished by inshore vessels on the west coast of Scotland. Can we hear anything about further measures of protection?
There has been the enormous development of the purse net, which greatly increases the catching power of the herring fleet. In the season one can now see off Shetland many Norwegians who catch and land great quantities of herring. What is the Government's latest information on the effect of this on stocks? Is it having a serious effect?
Nearly everybody would agree that there are objections to industrial fishing. In a world which is very short of food there is something slightly distasteful about dragging enormous quantities of herring from the sea and turning them into meal to feed broiler chickens for the better-off. If any method could be found of adding this protein to the general world food stocks it would be very welcome. But industrial fishing is going on on a large scale. We must face that, and take part in it if it is to continue.
We are importing large amounts of fish. I think that I am right in saying that our annual requirement is about one million tons of herring, and we are landing in our own boats only between 150,000 and 200,000 tons. This is largely brought in for fishmeal. This seems to mean that we could expand the herring fleet and usefully expand the facilities, the reduction plants and so on, although I believe that there are large unsold stocks in South America. The Minister mentioned this question of fish stocks in connection with white fish.
If we are to encourage the herring fishing, we shall have to look to a bigger boat to prosecute purse netting successfully. One needs a boat of upwards of 100 feet, and it must be very highly equipped. Not only with herring fishing but with fishing generally, equipment is costing more and more. It costs more to have gutting machines on board, and it is very expensive. We may soon need freezing facilities on the ship, even on the inshore fleet, which were not thought of some years ago. The Minister announced increased loans and grants,

but one needs a great deal of money now to equip fishing boats. Finance will pose a considerable problem.
So far we have a certain number of boats—there is, for instance, the "Selma" which I have seen off Shetland—experimenting with the Norwegian methods. We must go into this matter. They mean a relatively small crew but a big income. I wonder whether the Government have any further information about some of the experiments going on, particularly in the north of Scotland.
The Minister also rightly mentioned the need for more outlets and more processing. Here again, certainly in Shetland, we have been fortunate in getting grants from the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and have considerably increased the local market for fish. Nevertheless, we suffer to some extent from low prices. There is still in general throughout the inshore fishing industry, which I am glad to say is relatively much better off at present than some of the trawling ports, a great need for more processing and more outlets. Have the Government given further thought to a minimum price scheme? If that is something which the Committee, which I believe has been set up by the Scottish Office, is looking into, that will be popular in the industry. It is the sort of thing we should look to in the future.

Mr. Hoy: It is at present being discussed between the White Fish Authority and the industry. We shall have to wait until they have reached their conclusions and sent them to us.

Mr. Grimond: I am glad to hear that, because it would be a popular move in the industry.
I am also glad that the Minister takes the view that the industry could make a very substantial contribution to our trade balance, and that we should not need to go on importing about £100 million worth of fish a year. I am glad that he realises the potential of the inshore industry, which can now deliver very good prime fish, for which, I am glad to say, there is a growing taste throughout the consuming public of Britain.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: My hon. Friend the


Minister, who has given us such encouraging news, is well known as an old friend of the industry. What he said tonight about future support and guaranteed support will please and satisfy the industry and hon. Members who represent fishing ports. I do not know whether we should call this the post-Fleck era, but certainly a new era is opening. Perhaps one might call it the pre-Hoy era. People in the industry will look forward to a change in their circumstances, which is badly needed.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said that he was not an apostle of gloom, but he could justifiably have been one because of the statistics he quoted from the Humber ports. We are visited in the House by civic deputations concerned about the depressed state of the deep sea fishing, fleet. A Cabinet Minister now has his mayor and town clerk coming to see him. We are all complaining—owners, deckhands and the trade unions—all together in a most unusual alliance for this industry in putting the case for Government assistance. Perhaps not all fishermen need it. The inshore fishermen are doing very well.
A few days ago I was at the Council of Europe, where, as Chairman of the Fisheries Committee, I argued the case for our trawler men with our E.F.T.A. colleagues. The Norwegians contend that they are not dumping in the G.A.T.T. sense of the term, but, if not, they are certainly undercutting us. We had a job to convínce them that this was so and of the difficulties of our fishing people in the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend emphasised the need for a radical change in the structure of the industry. Despite the great virtues of fishermen—courage, independence, initiative and stamina—this is an antiquated industry. It is a highly individualistic industry. God—or at least the Labour Government—helps those who help themselves. There are still far too many Victorian aspects of the industry. There is too little industrial democracy for the men who sail the ships. There is a feudal attitude by owners towards skippers. There is still an atmosphere of "hire and fire". There are worries and insecurity in my constituency about conditions in the industry.
The British Trawler Federation, the Conservative lobby in this House and the

Transport and General Workers' Union—an unusual alliance—are asking for a simple cure by a massive injection of money by the Government. My hon. Friend has spoken generously about this. But it is curious, as he said, that it is almost always a Labour Government who are asked to give people help. Not merely my hon. Friend saw these difficulties coming. The White Fish Authority for five years has been saying the same. The Fleck Committee's policy was not viable. The writing has been on the wall for years, The Fleck policy was that of the Tory Party which has now disowned it. The policy is not viable and we must face a completely new situation.
In deference to hon. Members opposite, I shall not quote at length but I have here an interesting booklet by Jeremy Tunstall published by the Fabian Society, which goes into many details about marketing, and the need for the much more efficient industry which must follow upon the financial help to be given in the years to come. My hon. Friend has pledged that there will be continuing support for the industry.
We are told by the White Fish Authority and others that there is no confidence in the industry, that no orders are being made and that there are too few applications to build new vessels. Now, we can begin a new page in the ledger and think in terms of building up the fleet.
How much state aid does the industry get? It is about £5 million a year as compared with about £270 million or £280 million given to the agricultural industry. That makes fishing a Cinderella alongside its elder sister. The farmers have a very powerful lobby in the N.F.U. and I only wish that the fishermen worked together as tightly knit as the farmers, with as good a political leadership. There is no unity in the fishing industry compared with the agricultural industry. So again I say to the leaders of the fishing industry, "Unite and do the job shoulder to shoulder". Measuring subsidies in proportionate terms, I suggest that the farmers have an advantage of about 13 to 9, taking into consideration the comparative sizes of the two industries. I have said many times that there should be more parity between the two industries. I accept that we cannot have complete parity in the context of the tens


of millions of £s involved, but the present proportions are unfair. The proportion of 13 to 9 in favour of the farmers should be narrowed even if equality is not possible.
In view of the depressed conditions on Humberside, I desire to see some attempt to control imports. It is sad to see the amount of foreign fish being landed compared to the amount our own people are selling. I have seen at Hull a Norwegian boat with 1,100 tons of cod on board. The cod was bought—whatever one might say about dumping or undercutting—by British trawler owners and taken off the boat and put into cold storage. The trawler owners, acting on behalf of the industry and asking for help, must really put their house in order if the Government are asked to help, as I am sure the Government will.
The next thing to emphasise in any stocktaking of the industry is the vital matter regarding the quality of the fish and what I would term its "quality control". Our wives will tell us that they will pay good money for good fish, but they and all those catering for hotels and institutions like schools and canteens will not buy fish which has lain in ice, 10 or 12 days in a wet fisher and is not in the best condition on the quayside at the auctions. It then has to travel perhaps 17 hours by lorry to get to distant parts of England and Wales. Quality is all important in the sale of fish that we catch. The modern housewife is choosey.
Again, we must take a good hard look at where we are losing money in the industry. Some vessels are suffering a loss of from £5 to £68 per day each in cash alone. These are oil-burners which are 15 to 17 years old. They total perhaps 90 vessels in the deep sea fleet of approximately 180 boats.
But our job is not merely to ask for a checks on foreign landings and for increased subsidies. We must replace old inefficient oil burners by modern vessels. This can be done over a period. If there are 90 vessels which have to be replaced in the next eight or ten years, and reckoning the cost at £500,000 each, with the Government giving 40 per cent., it means that the Government will be asked for about £12 million. This is not an impossible amount over eight or ten years to re-equip our fleet with modern

vessels. This re-equipment is not only necessary for the sake of efficiency but for the sake of giving the men decent, safe and more attractive working conditions.
The situation in relation to the number of men and their quality coming into the industry is not unlike that in deep coal mining, it is deteriorating. The standard is not of the calibre it was. This is taxing the minds of union leaders on Humberside. If we could get better men in better ships, it would mean better catches and better quality of fish. There is no doubt that, if we do not give the industry this aid, we will not get the new vessels built, and that, unless we get the new vessels, we will not get the right quality of men to man them.
Finally, I ask that the owners on their side should give a quid pro quo. We have talked ad nauseam in this Chamber about productivity agreements, saying that wages will go up if workers can show a number of criteria that a pay rise is justified.
Money given by the State, whether it is to an aircraft company, a motor car firm or, as in this case, the fishing owners, must show results. Therefore, the industry should become more efficient in every way. I hope that the Minister will agree that future subsidies should be tied to efficiency. It is very important that we should have a profitable fleet and an efficient fleet. I would give more subsidy to owners of those vessels which are more efficient and more profitable so as to encourage efficiency. In addition, more company mergers are necessary. There are too many small inefficient units. I am not here talking about family firms, which are often very efficient. We need more mergers and larger units in this technological age, giving savings in overheads, and a much more efficient organisation for the industry.
First, give the industry the financial help which is so badly needed, and then link this to efficient working by means of operational subsidies. I ask the Minister if some efforts be made to check imported fish which is now being landed and which is under-cutting home fish? Given these things, the industry can look forward to an era ahead which is much better than the one we look back to over the last eight or 10 years.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: The hon. Gentleman's speech was at least a good deal more agreeable than that of the Minister who spoke for the Government, who, I though, got off on a party political note which my hon. Friends and myself strongly resent. The Minister has been Minister in charge of fishing for three and a half years. When he used to stand at this Dispatch Box he held himself up to be the saviour of the fishing industry, yet, since he has been the Minister responsible, the industry has got into a worse position that it has ever been in. He had better remember this when he criticises this side of the House for the 1962 Act. In 1962, and up until 1964, there was no lack of confidence in the industry. They were still re-equipping, still building new trawlers, but they are not doing to today. That is the condemnation of the Minister and of the Government's policy.
We have always had an all-party approach to this problem, and this is right for the industry. So why has it taken the Government, when they knew they would get the co-operation of this side of the House, three and a half years to bring forward their proposals? They said that they started work on the proposals in November, 1964, and they still have not produced the full proposals. Had we not asked for this Adjournment debate tonight we would not even now have got anything out of them.
The Government must take responsibility, and they know it only too well. It is no good the Minister coming to the Dispatch Box and producing the cheap points that he has produced today. The Minister has not said a single word about the near and middle water fishing. He has talked about inshore and distant water fishing, but we have heard nothing about near water fishing. We must have an answer to this by the end of the debate, otherwise that part of the industry will not know where it stands.
The effect of the last two years on the fishing industry has been disastrous, there is no other word for it, and on that both sides of the House agree. We also agree that many of these problems are world problems and not just the problems of Britain.
One of our gravest problems is that Britain is the only market in the world

which is open to every country, and the dramatic change in the holding of frozen stocks throughout the world has made the British market much more vulnerable than before. This has happened only in the last three or four years. Some people say, "Let the fishing industry go; we can get subsidised cheap imports which are of advantage to the consumer, and we should let our fishing industry die." All hon. Members in the House would utterly refute that, but we probably have an axe to grind. The impartial judge in the Restrictive Practices Court a few months ago said that having no industry, or no support for the industry, would result in a very short time in prices going sky-high and the import bill rising correspondingly.
It is in the interests of the consumer and of the nation that we should have a healthy, viable and prosperous fishing industry. How should we support it? The hon. Gentleman who spoke last produced a document written by Jeremy Tunstall. His idea is that we should have a form of price guarantee subsidy. The Minister tonight has talked about continuing with the same old subsidy systems we had before, perhaps at different levels, but the same system. I do not think that either of these ideas would work.
We have had a subsidy system now for a good many years, and the purpose of the subsidy system was always to get the industry into a state where it could stand on its own feet. This has not happened, and there is nothing to show that it ever could happen. Whilst we remain the only market to take surplus fish from the world, whatever we try to do to help our fishing industry will be under-cut by imports coming in. If we adopt Jeremy Tunstall's method, we will have a rising subsidy bill and because fish is still coming in the price will fall, and the subsidy will increase. This would be an open-ended commitment, just as we have had for many years with agricultural subsidies, and which we are now trying to get rid of. I do not believe that is a starter either.
One must look further than those two ideas for a solution. There is only one method left to us, and that is a form of protection for the industry. People do not like the word "protection", I know, but we must do something to enable the industry to stabilise, and to


know that it will have a market at a reasonable price.

Mr. James Johnson: How will we then get over our G.A.T.T. commitments and agreements with E.F.T.A.?

Mr. Prior: I am just coming to that. It is, of course, the stumbling-block.
Let me deal with E.F.T.A. first, because it is from the E.F.T.A. countries that most fish comes. Norway, for instance, is a very poor country, and it is not in her interests to have to subsidise her fishing industry to the extent that she does today. She cannot afford it. She is bitterly upset at the price that she gets for frozen fillets landed here and would like a higher one.
My suggestion about the E.F.T.A. countries would be to talk to them about some form of market sharing arrangement. We have done it with bacon, and I think that we shall have to do it with fish. It will be more difficult with fish because we have a wider variety of products. However, if it could be done with frozen fillets of cod, haddock and plaice, we should largely overcome the problem. I would like the Government to say that they are willing to enter into negotiations on the point and, because Norway gets such a bad price at the moment and has to subsidise her industry so heavily, now is the best time to do it.

Mr. James Johnson: Is it not a fact that there is already a working party discussing the possibility of a fisheries policy in E.F.T.A. and that we are engaged in it? As I have said already, I have attempted to fight this practice at Strasbourg, and I am told that it is happening.

Mr. Prior: I am delighted to hear it, but I would like to see more action from the Government than we have seen so far. We have been told nothing about it in the House. It is a matter of great consequence and, with due respect to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), it wants fighting a good deal harder than anything that could be done at Strasbourg, because I do not think that that would convince many of us that much effort is being put into it.
Holland is another country which sends us fish. It is plain that the Dutch are

heavily subsidising their fish in order to send it here. We should take action against these people under the anti-dumping duties. It is no good leaving it to the industry to put in the necessary applications, because it has not the resources to obtain all the information. This is a job for the Government. The Government should get on with it and encourage the industry to put in applications, and they should begin talks with the Dutch to stop fish coming in. It is only by that type of measure that the industry will regain the confidence that it has lost.
All this will enable us to stabilise our share of the catch and of the market. I do not see anything else doing that for us. The Minister has announced the changes that he will introduce, but I am not sure that they will be made in time. Then again, we do not know the level at which the subsidies will be brought in, and that is the key to the problem.
It is my information that, unless the industry has an immediate injection of a considerable amount of cash, within the next six months a lot of firms will go out of business. Nothing less than the sort of policy which I have tried to outline will restore the confidence of the industry. Anything else will not restore the confidence of the crews and will not give the industry a chance to adopt modern methods and the safety equipment which we all know to be necessary.
The confidence in the industry is not there. There are criticisms about the way in which it is run. It is always easy to make criticisms about that, and there is plenty of room for improvement. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not always the big companies which are the most efficient, though there are grounds for thinking that bigger units operating together as fleets can achieve rather more than some of the existing arrangements. If confidence returns to the industry, however, I am certain that it will adopt many of the suggested improvements. It is because the industry feels let down and very depressed that we call upon the Government for action.
I do not believe that the scrapping concession announced by the Government means anything. There will be any number of boats taken out of commission in the next few months. The job will be to persuade the industry to build new boats, not to scrap old ones. There is a very


good chance that, unless a heavy injection of cash is made immediately, the scrapping rate will be far too high for the health of the industry. Even as it is, there will be very few new boats coming into the fleets over the next two or three years, and we shall need to maintain some of the older vessels until the new flow comes in.
The industry is in a very serious state, and the Opposition have performed a useful function tonight. I hope that the Minister will take it from us that, unless we have something more definite than the Government have given us so far before we adjourn for the Summer Recess, we shall come back for another debate, and all semblance of inter-party unity will have disappeared.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar: May I first of all welcome this debate and thank the Opposition for having provided the time for us to have it. May I also thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), for his opening statement. He said a large number of things that echoed many of the arguments made in fishing debates over the past few years. The Fleck Committee has been seen to be outdated and to be no more than a kind of unrealistic essay in the optimistically inflexible. I think we are glad to see that it is being largely dismantled.
I accept what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said about the scrapping ratio. At the present time and in the present uncertain state of the industry this is a doubtful concession, but if we get the help from the Government we all want it may again become of great importance, particularly to a fleet like Aberdeen's. We have now got away from the strict and rigid rules of subsidies, a 7½, per cent. to 12½ per cent. reduction, and I think we should all be grateful but, as the hon. Member for Lowestoft said—and this is true and cannot be challenged—the fact that the Government have sensibly got rid of these restrictions and inhibitions does not mean that we applaud a success story as such. What is vital and what we must wait anxiously to hear is exactly what kind of money is going to be made

available, particularly in the short term, to restore confidence in the industry. That is the first essential. In my part of the world, if people are being anything like honest with me, there is precious little confidence at the moment. Boats are being laid off in the deep sea fleet in England. In Scotland the debt of the White Fish Authority has gone up again this year and a large number of boats must be in danger of repossession. Responsible people tell me in cold blood that, if something is not done quickly, about a third of the boats in the Aberdeen fleet may be laid off in the near future. It frightens me to think of the effect that could have on the economics and the general prosperity of my constituency.
I hope that the Minister, when he gets up to talk about the level of the subsidy, will be extremely generous. Obviously, time will be an important factor. The new subsidy rates have to be legislated for before 1st August and if we are also going to put through a Bill to amend the 1962 Act then the amount of time left for consultation must be strictly limited. We cannot allow the industry, caught as it is with rising costs and falling prices, to go on with hopes ebbing in an uncertain situation which tempts them, on any normal commercial criteria, to lay off boats and dismantle the fleet.
I should like to see some of the supplementary subsidy which has accumulated—because we have been using, over the years, much less than the £350,000 maximum we have annually, and there is some £1½million left from this fund—thrown in as an emergency financial measure to do something about the immediate situation. Once we have this injection and have managed to allay the immediate fears, we have the possibility of building a long-term structure which will inspire continuing confidence and allow prosperity to grow.
I am pessimistic about one major factor of instability, and that is the increase of imports into this country. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) will have no illusions about the difficulty of negotiating within the framework of, for instance, E.F.T.A. and I should not imagine that there were any great hopes of achieving a satisfactory quota system or a satisfactory negotiating


system. However, if the Norwegians take their pound of flesh in terms of the construction of aluminium smelters I hope that in return the Government will take a very beastly line indeed on fish imports into this country. But the general picture must be one of caution.
As regards the minimum price scheme, I hope this will be part of the long-term plan for the fishing industry. There was quite an interesting exchange during question time today when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made it perfectly clear in reply to a challenge from the Opposition benches that the thing on which previous plans had foundered was not the principle of the provision of Treasury aid but lack of support from the industry.
I have been a little sceptical about this lack of support. Perhaps I have been shortsighted or have taken a narrow view. In Aberdeen we have always supported the principle, and recent contacts in Hull and Grimsby suggest that they are now very solidly behind at least the outline plan for a minimum price scheme. I get the same impression from a few people in the inshore fleet. I hope that the implications that I am drawing from the answers this afternoon, saying that it was lack of support which was the stumbling block, means that the Minister would not be opposed, at least in principle, to putting in some Treasury support for a minimum price scheme in future.
Such a scheme, efficiently run, including and giving some sort of benefit to the shore crews and the men generally, must be an essential feature of all future plans. I also hope that we will have much more regular consultation in future and much better liaison between the industry and Government. Too often in the past we have seen an ad hoc meeting hurriedly summoned with people, with the very best of intentions, scrambling to stave off imminent disaster and financal ruin. This will not do, and I hope that when we manage to get some kind of system, we will have a continuing dialogue ensuring that both sides can contribute to forward-planning and civility.
Too often in the past, under the pressure of events, such as the kind of catastrophe that threatened when the supplementary subsidy was disbursed in 1967, we have had an arbitrary plan drawn up, an arbitrary line across the fleets, includ-

ing some sections, excluding others. This cannot be a satisfactory way in which to proceed. It cannot allow of sufficient analysis and preparation before these schemes are introduced. The Scottish fleet was excluded when the supplementary subsidies were last paid out. I know that on a simple basis of which was doing worst—because no one was doing well—this may have been a defensible decision. I recognise the very real difficulties of the English deep water fleet but we must never forget that the Estimates Committee reported not so very long ago that it had doubts about the 1972 viability date. Its doubts were not with the deep water fleet, but over the middle water fleet, that it could not possibly meet that date.
This illustrates the tremendous variety of circumstances, and how quickly the scene in the fishing industry can change. While we may not be in such acute difficulties, there is no doubt that even in the bèst period, the four months from July, 1967, which was used to judge who should get the supplementary subsidy, the Scottish middle distance fleet, based at Aberdeen and Grantham, was making a very substantial loss—I am informed something about 72s. a day. If one looks at the figures closely the position was even more serious than that, because this includes depreciation at 6⅔ per cent. and almost all the Aberdeen boats are modern enough to have depreciation in a meaningful sense, while a large section of the Hull fleet are time-expired in every sense of the word. To include depreciation for them was to give them the benefit of a very considerable doubt indeed.
Take the record of the Aberdeen middle distance fleet over a period of years, say 1961–65, when I am told the loss was averaging out at about £3 a day. We have had a much longer period of depression and difficulty, even though we may temporarily—and I hope it will last for some time—be in a slightly more fortunate position than our neighbours south of the Border. We must get a system which will give sufficient flexibility to adjust to these changing circumstances.
I should also like to see a system doing something about the structure of the fleet. If one looks at the boats which benefited from supplementary subsidies


in 1967, as far as I can make out, over one-third were oil burners, built before 1950. They had to be helped in the short-term. But in 1965 Aberdeen made an application for supplementary subsidy for five boats of rather similar age, oil burners built before 1950, and was refused on the grounds that they were obsolete. That was perfectly true, but if one applies that rule it has to be applied consistently, at least in long-term planning. I hope that this will be looked at and taken into account.
If one takes the White Fish Authority's figures at the ports and looks at the catch in hundredweights per 100 hours trawling, one sees some quite astonishing figures. In 1966—the most recent figures I have seen—the fleet in England was coming in at 270 cwt. while in Scotland it was 810 cwt. I do not accept these figures as they stand, because they seem to show such an amazing differential. They need a lot of further explanation and a great deal of further analysis. Whatever distortions there may be, they are sufficiently remarkable and suggest, in terms of efficiency, that the Scottish fleet is doing very well. I hope that the encouragement of efficiency will be a principle which will be kept very much in mind when the new system is evolved
I do not wish to bandy figures or statistics with the Minister, because I know that his advisers would beat me to the punch every time. I am sure that they have all the facts and figures before them. All I can do—and it is my duty—is to reflect local opinion as I find it and as it is conveyed to me by the representatives of the Aberdeen fleet. There is a considerable state of crisis in the Aberdeen fleet and, it would seem, a certain amount of well-founded alarm.
The fleet is of immense importance in my constituency. It employs directly 2,000 people, and it probably employs in the fish houses, ice-making factories and ancillary trades another 6,000. It is, in the real sense, the basic industry of Aberdeen. Aberdeen is the centre of a development area which sometimes, because of geographical factors and so on, finds it difficult to compete with other areas in the central belt of Scotland. If the kind of disaster which appears to be imminent came to pass, it would have the

most serious repercussions on the whole general economic climate in the North-East of Scotland, and particularly in my constituency.
I hope that we will get generous and quick action. If we are not offered a real prospect of a stable future for the fishing fleet, I am afraid for the results which may occur in my part of the country.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I am glad that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) has stressed the importance of the fishing industry in Aberdeen. I agree with his sentiment. I would only add that that industry is of extreme importance to the whole area around Aberdeen, both south and north. It is an essential industry to our development and economy.
We have known that the state of the deep-sea fishing industry has been, and is, very serious. The figures have been put before the House and they make grim reading. There is much to be said for the theory that, provided emergency aid had not been granted, Britain might have lacked a trawler fleet altogether in a few months' time. Therefore, I am glad about the changes which the Minister announced tonight. My only concern is whether those changes will be enough. Will they do the job of salvage which they will have to do?
I should also like to consider, in common with some of my hon. Friends who have spoken, some of the alternative and additional proposals which the Government will have to consider in deciding what to do about the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) pointed out that the most obvious one is the question of foreign landings of fish. We import roughly £100 million worth of fish and fish products. We are the world's second biggest importer of fish. That situation needs very careful examination.
For example, our fishermen can not land in Norway. They ask with real and understandable feeling: why, then, should foreign vessels be allowed to land here when they are often at an advantage over our boats and our industry due to the significantly larger margins of Government support which many receive in their


own countries? I personally think this question of foreign landings ought to be considered very carefully, and considered in conjunction with the merchants and processors of the fish in this country. I do not believe it is impossible for our boats to catch what is required for the British markets and for the British processing firms, and to provide it at reasonable prices instead of expecting it to be supplied by foreign boats. But shore firms and fishermen alike need to have confidence in each other's operating if this is to be carried through successfully and if the present availability of foreign supplies is to be controlled in this way.
The next question is whether anything more can be done to economise and make still more efficient the operating of the distant and middle water fleets. It is not for me to comment on that in one sense, but I can say that in the part of the world I represent, where inshore fishing is important, there is considerable and I think justifiable pride in the method of financing and working the local fleet. Any man can have a share. A whole crew can own a boat together. The skipper is the boss, but he gets the same wage as the cook or deck hand. Those men have to make their boats pay. There is no alternative. Nobody else carries the can. That is the way they want it and the way they think it should be. There are other factors as well, but the present position of the inshore fleet in Scotland is good compared with the deep sea industry to the extent that at least they are at this point paying their way. But let nobody be mistaken; the achievements of that fleet are hardly won, and much depends on the initiative and responsibility of the individual crews.
As I understood the Minister's remarks—and I hope I understood him aright as I welcome this aspect of his policy—the treatment of the inshore fleet and the deep sea fleet is going to be comparable at this time. I am particularly glad about that. It seems just to me.
I am also glad that the scrapping policy is apparently now clarified. There has been doubt in my part of the world as to whether there was a replacement policy or not. We understood there was a one for one basis for a time, but it seemed recently that there was no such

policy and I am glad we know that the scrapping policy has now ended.
What is the Government's aim for the industry in the future? I was in Norway the other day and the fishing people I talked to there are seriously contemplating a time where the catchable fish in the sea will either have to be rationed internationally or extinguished altogether. The Scottish herring fishermen have the same fear about the herring, and I would take issue with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) because with the enormous catching power of modern methods there are not the markets which can cope with the supplies of fish that may appear as a result of these methods. Already on the east coast of Scotland and on the east coast of England the herring have disappeared, and the main catch of the herring fleet now is concentrated on the west coast of Scotland. What guarantee is there that, as these pump-seine boats extend their fishing operations, herring will not be swept up in such enormous quantities that the industry will disappear? That is a real fear among practical fishermen in my part of the world. They fear that this may happen rather sooner than many people think.
If the quantity of fish in the sea decreases, whatever the scientists say, and whatever the doubts and arguments may be, at some point the Governments concerned will have to get together to make some sort of agreement about who is able to catch what. The Norwegian Government are spending an enormous amount of money on their fishing industry, I believe because they want to ensure that when the time comes to ration fishing they will have an industry of a sufficient size so they will have a large stake in whatever scheme is worked out. I do not want us to have a minor position compared with Norway. It is of great importance that we establish as large a stake as possible in the fishing industry of the future.
This country will get the fishing industry that it deserves, the industry that it pays for, and the industry that it earns, by the care and attention that it gives to it. I hope that the present crisis will mean that the Government will pay more attention to the industry, and that we


shall have a better and more prosperous fleet.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I very much welcome the preliminary announcement by my hon. Friend about the help to be given to the fishing industry. It is true that this debate is being held at the behest of the Opposition, but there is a great deal of substance in what one of my hon. Friends said, that it might have been better to have waited a week in order to have a full-scale debate to deploy the many problems of the industry, and to discover all the Government's plans, both what we have heard today, and what will emerge as a result of further discussions with the industry. I appreciate that the Opposition have pressed for this debate because the problems of the fishing industry are of considerable concern to everybody connected with the industry.
I welcome, too, the fact that my hon. Friend decided to highlight what he regarded as the particular problems, the question of the adverse competition, the open market here, the quick freezing techniques, and so on. What I am sorry about is that we have to wait to hear how he proposes to deal with those problems.
I think that we can deal with the problem of the open market here, and meet competition from abroad, with the exception of that from Norway. The imports of fish and fish products have remained reasonably constant from most countries. The real increase has been from Norway both in fish for eating and for making into fish meal and fertiliser. The value of what she sends here is considerable.
When we are discussing the fishing industry, we often tend to concentrate on the catching side and the economics of the trawler fleets. That is proper, because that is the origin of the commodity. Rarely do we explore what happens to the fish after they have been landed and sold on the quayside.
I want to discuss the organisation of the industry, and the marketing techniques that we employ. There is insufficient integration in the industrial structure of the firms concerned in quayside sales, wholesale and retail distribution.

The question of distribution from sea to table has not been considered in sufficient detail and with sufficient attention to market demands. I think that my hon. Friend gave a hint that this would be part of the discussions with the industry. There is a great fragmentation of ownership of the wholesale and distributive outlets and also, to some extent, in catching, although the main firms are getting larger and taking more staff.
However, perhaps with some hindsight, I think that the Monopolies Commission recommendation on Ross and Associated was, in the long run, not in the industry's interests. We also lack aggressive marketing techniques for this important food, since we tend to assume that the majority of the population eat fish out of paper. The variety of ways in which fish can be cooked—I was about to say, "the adventure of eating fish", but that might give the wrong impression—is something to which the industry has never paid much attention. We have tended to be conservative in the type of fish which we are prepared to eat, although, as Tunstall points out in his book, when abroad, we are prepared to eat different fish in different ways, in soups, stews and pies.
Besides this lack of aggressive marketing, there is considerable insecurity for the future. I think that my hon. Friend's statement will go some way towards minimising that fear; certainly, his promise of continued support will be welcome. But there are other things which the industry needs. For instance, it needs a minimum prices scheme.
There was, for a time, a good deal of opposition in the industry towards such a scheme, but they have now conceded it. To be fair, not only did they not want it, but the Treasury did not offer financial support. A combination of the two resulted in the failure to reach agreement: we must be objective about this. But we must also examine carefully what kind of Treasury grant or subsidy the industry would want in a guaranteed or minimum price scheme.
Also, the existence of two main boards, the White Fish Authority and the Herring Fishing Industry Board to cover the industry's needs tends to fragment it. What we should have is one marketing board for the whole industry, to organise the marketing as well as to be responsible


for the areas of research now covered by the White Fish Authority.
But Tunstall had a point in saying that there is too much fragmentation among the different Ministries which deal with the industry. It is, of course, possible to give reasons why, for example, the Foreign. Office should be concerned, but there are parts of this industry which would be better under a separate Department of fisheries as such. With a minimum prices scheme and one authority for the industry, we would go a long way towards getting the flourishing and efficient industry which we want, as well as a cheap and highly nutritious food on our tables.
It is not without significance, when discussing the doldrums facing the industry at the moment and the poor price which wet fish commands at the quayside markets, to note that the price at which that fish comes to the housewife is not markedly lower than that which she was paying before we had this trouble. This is particularly significant at a time when the price of meat has been rising rapidly, for a variety of reasons outside our control, when fish has not dropped in price and when the amount of fish being consumed does not bear comparison to what should be available in the market.
We also tend to think of fish as a food when we should be thinking of its important by-products. This has a fundamental part to play in import substitution for fish meal and fertilisers. The figures have increased considerably in recent years, and although I believe that the value in cash terms has gone down, the amount of fish meal that is being imported has gone up in quantity terms.
What appears to be lacking in all these factors is a clear goal at which the industry should aim. I hope that, as a result of stabilising the situation following the Minister's statement, when we reach the rest of the findings and decisions of the Department, this goal for the industry will be evident so that it may know what share of the market British caught fish can expect to have, both as a food and for its various by-products. The industry should also know what sort of help it will be given to enable it to shape and organise itself properly and to achieve the vertical integration that is needed.
This whole matter is of importance not only to the fishing industry but to the

shipbuilding industry, and particularly to small shipyards. When we have been considering the building of fishing vessels there has often been criticism that the introduction of new techniques has been behind that of our foreign competitors. We must, therefore, consider the organisation of our shipbuilding teams and yards. Ships are being built in small yards and we are producing good modern vessels to the latest designs, but there is tremendous fragmentation in the industry. Great difficulties are faced and we are constantly being lobbied on this score. Yet there appear to be no common marketing agreements, no common study of what is available, no common design teams and no common management teams.
There is great potential for our shipbuilding industry, working in conjunction with the catching side of the industry, to create tremendous opportunities both for us to have an efficient and modern fleet and to export these vessels abroad. I hope that something along these lines is being considered, if not by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, then by the Ministry of Technology.
I would like to see a strong common design team and an efficient management structure considering the market, deciding future developments, deciding where in future the fleets will fish and how far abroad they should go; for example, to the South Atlantic and elsewhere. I would like to see them preparing designs for ships, not only for our immediate but future needs so that in, say, 10 years' time we are not found wanting for the efficient fleet which we deserve and need.
I do not have time to go in detail into the other problems that exist. I hope that when we have the overall report of the Departmental Committee—and since we have now started to throw Fleck overboard and we have the Report of the Holland Martin Committee on safety in the industry—the industry will be able to make a new start. I want it to lose its antiquated image of the 19th century. The Minister has gone a long way towards preparing the ground for a thriving industry to be achieved. I hope that when we get the rest of his statement we on Humberside and those in all the other fishing ports will be able to look forward to a thriving and prosperous fishing industry.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. G. B. H. Currie: I do not want to detain the House very long. Naturally when one rises at this stage in a debate of this nature most of the matters one intended to cover have already been dealt with by earlier speakers. It has been an interesting debate, far-ranging and to me most interesting, covering as it did the deep sea fleet, the middle water fleet and touching on the inshore fleet.
In the part of the country I come from, Northern Ireland, we have only an inshore fleet. The main part of that fleet is based in my constituency in the very up-to-date harbour which was provided partly with Government support somewhere about 1954–55. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has the remaining part of the fleet in his area in two harbours, Kilkeel and Annalong. He is not so happy because those harbours drastically need to be modified and brought up to date.
The subject of this debate is sufficiently wide for me to touch first on some of the features which have not been covered so far, the protection of our fishermen in the waters of the United Kingdom. Year after year nets are cut by vessels coming in from other countries and we have interference with our fishermen in their own waters. Perhaps it would be possible for the Government, through their usual offices, to supply some better protection against this nuisance, which is more than a nuisance to our fishermen. We have called for assistance on a number of occasions for our fishing ports, but unfortunately that assistance takes some time to come and damage has usually been done before the fishery protection vessel arrives. This is a very important matter for our fishermen.
I intended this evening to refer to subsidies and an increase of grants, but now that would be a sheer waste of time because we must await the publication of the full statistics to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred in his opening speech. I was sorry that he introduced party politics into the subject. I forgive him for that. I realise his anxiety in these days with polls and other things going the way they are. Apart from his introduction of party politics he spoke with a real interest in the fishery industry.
It is not a subject which causes great blazes of patriotic fervour among the electorate. I know this because I made my maiden speech on the fishing industry 13 years ago. When I made my maiden speech the fishermen were facing rising costs, increased prices of fuel, increased cost of nets, increased cost of repairs of vessels and all the other costs which we see rising today. I do not blame that on the party opposite for it happened when there was a Conservative Government. It is happening now. Indeed, I think that it is happening more rapidly now. These are things with which fishermen have to contend.
I am glad that so many hon. Members referred to the dependence of large areas of our constituencies upon the industry. It is not only that the fisherman must provide security for himself and his family. Shopkeepers, ancillary industries, and residents in the area of fishing ports also depend upon the industry's wellbeing. I very much hope that when the statistics to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred are published fishermen will be given confidence that their livelihood is assured for the present and for the immediate future, provided that they are prepared to put the effort into the industry which they do—I believe that there are no better types of citizens throughout the length and breadth of Britain than fishermen; they are honest, straightforward, hard-working and courageous—and will be able to see their way sufficiently far ahead to plan for future years and, if they need them, be able to make arrangements for the provision of new vessels with the increased grants.
One of our big problems in Northern Ireland is in connection with the marketing of fish. Recently in South Down there was a heavy rainstorm. The merchants waiting on the quayside departed before the fish were unloaded. There is a need for harbour facilities for sheds, for unloading facilities, and for access so that vehicles can get down to the quayside to take the loads of landed fish away. I do not know how far the Ministry is able to contribute towards meeting the cost of these necessary facilities.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to the question of advertising the beneficial


effects of eating fish, the advantages of buying it, and the saving which can be achieved across the foreign exchanges if we use our own fish. It occurred to me whilst listening to the hon. Gentleman's interesting speech that I have never yet seen on sponsored television an advertisement for fish, apart from the celebrated advertisement for fish fingers. More publicity about fish is required.

Mr. McNamara: Although I strongly criticise the lack of marketing techniques, in fairness to the industry it must be pointed out that it advertises other things than fish fingers.

Mr. Currie: I accept that. I have no great experience of television on this side of the Irish Sea. The industry is not totally lacking in public relations. I am very happy to say that on Saturday of this week in South Down there is to be held, under the auspices of the White Fish Authority, an open day in the port of Kilkeel, where the public will have the opportunity of inspecting the vessels and attending discussion groups so that they may be persuaded to take an interest in the industry. That is a very good sort of operation, which should be encouraged.
In particular, I ask the Minister to give what help he can in the way of protection against the invasion of foreign fleets, and in the provision of proper harbour facilities and facilities for marketing fish.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The question the House must ask itself is whether it wants a trawling industry in this country. I say "trawling industry", because I think that we are generally agreed that the inshore fisheries, although they have problems, are by and large reasonably proficient and efficient and reasonably profitable.
Hon. Members have already made clear that the House does want a trawling industry. It is important to many parts of the country—for example, both the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) made it clear that it was vitally important to Aberdeen.
The industry lands £60 million-worth of fish every year. It is an import-saving

industry and it could save many more imports. It has already been said that we buy from foreign sources over £100 million-worth of fish or fish products, so there is plenty of scope for further import-saving. If we had no trawling industry of our own, foreign prices, which are now subsidised and cut to the very minimum, would rise immediately, and the British housewife would have to pay.
I suggest—and I think that the Minister agrees, because he so indicated in opening—that the industry is as efficient as any of its foreign competitors, but it faces unfair competition at home as well as abroad. The subsidies paid to the fishing industry last year were some £1½ million, but 200 times as much was paid to its agricultural competitors. I do not grumble about that, but there is a disparity that could be redressed.
The foreigners subsidise their fishing industry by up to about 40 per cent., as has already been said about Norway. Our operational subsidies represent 4 per cent. of output. We should start putting this right when E.F.T.A. gets down to discussing these matters. If the Six and the Seven ever combine, this will have to be looked at very closely. Traditional British fishing grounds have been denied to us, and we have the largest open market in Europe.
The Fleck Report has stood the test of time, but there have been new developments since the Committee reported. Most of the Icelandic waters and the Faröes have been shut to us. Norway, Iceland and Italy have increased their subsidies to a phenomenal extent. The actions taken seven years ago were justified, but events have changed the whole outlook of the industry.
The problem facing the industry and the Government today are that the prices of fish are now about 12 per cent. below the cost of catching. The losses this year, which I understand the Ministry has agreed, are £12·8 million on the near water vessels, £17·1 million on the middle water vessels, and £24·2 million on the distant water vessels. There is an average loss of £18·6 per vessel per day at sea. Obviously, no industry can stand that rate of loss.
One can go even further as this is the general picture, but the nub of the problem facing us is that of the 90 conventional


trawlers belonging to the British Trawler Federation 55 were built in 1951 or earlier. They are therefore 17 years old now, and it is clear that about 55 to 80 trawlers will have to be replaced within the next ten years. It is equally clear that they are not profitable to operate today. This is a problem of the subsidy.
Evidence seems to show also that the quality of the fish landed by the conventional trawlers is suspect. I saw recently that an Icelandic trawler landed in Hull and made a profit of £21,000 because it landed very good cod. It is therefore clear that good cod can be sold. One wonders whether that vessel managed to catch its cod within the limits denied to British vessels? I do not say that that is the case but it may well be so.
The problem is to replace these 70-odd conventional trawlers in a period of about ten years. I presume that they will be replaced by stern fishers at a cost of about £500,000 each, which means a total bill of some £35 million over 10 years, which is, therefore, £3½ million a year which is not excessive.
The Minister must recast his subsidies policy. He must produce a subsidy which will keep these inefficient conventional trawlers going for a time, but he does not want to subsidise inefficiency too long. He must recast the system so that it will be based on some form of efficiency—I think that he has this in mind—whereby the old trawlers will be replaced by more efficient modern vessels, at the same time giving those who work hard and use their brains reasonable returns.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): indicated assent.

Mr. Wall: Probably it is a pity in some ways from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view that we have had this debate now. I was disappointed to hear what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary had to say about the fisheries review. I was not clear whether this was or was not an announcement of the review which has been in gestation for three years. He said that the Government will end the automatic subsidies out of a minimum of 7½ per cent. which comes every year. How much will this give the industry? The subsidy would have been cut 7½ per cent. this summer but not now. This is a nega-

tive statement. The industry is asking for £3 million a year to keep its vessels going and to re-equip the fleet on the lines of the recommendations of the Fleck Report. How much is it to get this year?
We are also to see the end of scrapping restrictions. The Minister is wise to do this. I wish that he had done it two years ago when we asked for it. It is not now just a question of scraping one ship for one but possibly a question of scrapping a whole fleet. The hon. Gentleman spoke of greater efficiency, market research and higher standards, and we are with him in that. But what are his thoughts on the matter? This subject has been in gestation for three years, so presumably all these matters have been discussed. Admittedly, factors such as devaluation have made the situation more difficult, but I hope that we shall be able to have a full and clear statement before the end of this session and that we shall be able to debate it.
What is so exasperating to everyone in the fishing industry is that other countries seem to be able to land their fish here but we can land fish nowhere else in Europe. There is no reciprocity. We cannot set up a fish meal plant in Norway. We cannot land in France or Norway. Perhaps France is the wrong example to give, however, because she is in the European Economic Community. But there might at least have been some reciprocity between the members of E.F.T.A.
The foreign fish imported is three times by weight the landings of British trawlers. This shows how serious the situation is. The key is frozen fillets. The import of cod fillets went up by 20 per cent. last year and by 48 per cent. in the first quarter of this year, and this is a serious matter. The Minister should consider the whole question of consultations on imports.
The E.E.C. system of agricultural support is different from ours, but it is one which the Conservative Party is advocating—although I am not clear whether we advocate also that it should apply to fishing. It seems to me that the E.E.C. itself does not know whether it applies to fishing as they have as yet no clear fisheries policy. But I hope that the Government will, however, think along these lines because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) seemed to indicate, this could well be the


answer in getting over the problem of dumping.
The Minister's main problem is to continue in operation these 70-odd conventional trawlers for the next 10 years while realising that he must not go on subsidising inefficiency and that he must devise some way of bringing in new ships, which will be the best way to increase the efficiency of the fleet. I believe that, with the need for protein in the world, there is a great future for our fishing industry. The experts tell us that the catch of the world will be doubled in the next 10 or 20 years. We must take our share.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Godber.

Dame Irene Ward: I have not had an opportunity—

9.30 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: Although I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), I must intervene at this stage if I am adequately to wind up the debate on behalf of the Opposition. I hope my hon. Friend will have an opportunity another time.
This debate, which has been held on the initiative of the Opposition, has at least brought agreement on the very serious state at the present time of the fishing industry, particularly the distant water section of the industry. It has also elicited a statement from the Government, after many delays, which I will touch on in a moment.
First, I must make passing reference to the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary. It was very unfortunate that he sought to engender political heat at that stage, and I am very glad that other hon. Members have not followed him in this.
The argument that he sought to adduce of our criticisms now being out of place because we brought in Fleck was quite absurd, if he will forgive me for saying so. It certainly was not the type of intelligent argument I would have expected from him. Obviously, the conditions which obtained at the time of Fleck have since changed materially in a way which neither Fleck nor anybody in this House could have anticipated. The way in which the frozen fillet has come to dominate the international trade has completely changed the picture, and it is quite absurd

for him to seek to blame this side of the House for the conditions of the fishery industry at the present time.
What he should have acknowledged was the need for a flexible approach. It has taken a very long time indeed to get from this Government a change in policy. The change which has been announced tonight is one that we shall want to look at very carefully indeed to see just how far it goes. We on this side have not been told nearly enough to satisfy us.
This debate has clearly established that there is a desperate state in the distant water section of the industry. It is one that has to be faced up to very rapidly indeed if we are hoping to maintain an adequate distant water fishing fleet. It has also established the very low price levels that exist in this country.
Many of my hon. Friends have touched on the problem of the world surplus of frozen fish and the fact that most other European countries either subsidise their fishing or protect their own markets from imports, or, in some cases, do both.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. WolrigeGordon), my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) all referred repeatedly to the problem of imports, which has dominated our debate. I am sure they had the support of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) as well. There is very real concern felt by members on this side of the House, and it has been referred to by hon. Gentlemen opposite as well, about the problem arising out of imports.
The Humber ports are the main ports which are affected in the distant water section of the industry, and I have obtained the latest figures for actual landings and sales of fish over the first 17 weeks of each of the last three years. The figures are quite startling and show how the position has deteriorated during that period.
If one takes the grossed-up totals of the quantities of fish sold for the first 17 weeks in each of the last three years, one sees that the figure has gone down. In 1966, it was 93,496 tons, in 1967 it


was 83,902 tons, and in the present year it was 79,776 tons. While the actual quantities sold were dropping in that way, and the quantity unsold and going for fishmeal and other products was rising at the same time, naturally average values fell as well. The price per kit in 1966 was 101s. 11d., it was 103s. 2d. last year, and it fell to 93s. 1d. this year. So we have this definite falling off when everyone knows that the costs of the fishing industry has gone up enormously. I am sure that the Minister will realise that that is an important aspect and one at which he will want to look carefully in relation to the subsidy that he is to provide.
I gave figures for the first 17 weeks. However, this year, the eighteenth week reveals the worst story of all. Sales on the Humber totalled 5,141 tons, but there were 2,553 tons unsold which had to go for manufacture. In other words, one-third of the total catch in that week had to go for manufacture, which meant that the realised value of the catch came down to 83s. a kit. No wonder the industry is demoralised. Having studied the figures, I see that the number of tons unsold is the highest in any one week in any of the first 18 weeks in the last three years, and that is the picture up to date. Hon. Members representing those ports have already expressed their concern. These figures endorse and strengthen everything that has been said.
The whole picture is coloured very much by the problem of imports, which have been coming in at very high levels. Indeed, the levels of imports have been rising steadily. In the first quarter of this year, they were 18 per cent. higher than in the first quarter of last year.
The figures mount up to a devastating position in relation to the distant water fishing industry, with a fall in prices, a rise in imports and a general position which has destroyed confidence completely.
Most of the largest firms in the distant water business are thinking of laying up large numbers of trawlers, and, once laid up, there is little prospect of any of them ever seeing service again. I understand that one large firm is talking of laying up no less than 30. There are no new vessels being ordered, and there are no prospects of any. The concession

over scrapping will not matter very much in present conditions.
In the light of what a number of hon. Members have said about the changing pattern of fishing, it may be that, to some extent, the traditional trawler is on the way out. At some stage, it may be that the factory ship will be the only economic unit in the distant water industry. However, we cannot allow these vessels to disappear overnight. If we do, we will hand over the business completely to our foreign suppliers, and what that will mean in terms of the intolerable burden that it will place on our fishing ports, to say nothing of the intolerable burden that it will place on our balance of payments, is a matter that we cannot contemplate at the present time. That is the background against which we have heard the statement from the Government, for which we have been waiting for a very long time indeed. Now that we have had it, what does it amount to? That is what I and my hon. Friends are very concerned about. I do not wish to be discourteous to the Parliamentary Secretary, but I hope we can get a clearer explanation. It is difficult to grasp, as he said, and I hope we can get some clarification.
As I understand it, it means that for the distant water section the automatic reduction subsidy is to stop and the subsidy each year is to be determined in the light of the circumstances of the industry at that time. If that is so, it is largely a reversion to the system that operated before Fleck and can only be a very temporary expedient unless it is accompanied by Treasury measures as well. I have already referred to the restrictions on scrapping, but it seems to me that although it will be necessary to do this it will have no effect at all.
This is being done for the distant water fleet. What is the position as regards the middle and near water? This was not clarified and I hope that the Under-Secretary will clarify it. I want clarification as to where we stand in regard to both these sections. We have heard about the inshore vessels and have noted with satisfaction what has been said about them. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East welcomed that particularly, as did the hon. Member for Down, North, but as regards the position of the middle water, near water


and, in particular, the distant water, it is not sufficient to tell us that this change is taking place. The industry must know the sort of level of subsidy that is going to be given to it this year, and must know at an early date. Therefore we ask the Government to clarify not only the position as stated here but what the actual level of subsidy is going to be.
We want to take that up at a very early date and I think that the Government ought to take time of their own in the near future so that we may have at least another half-day debate to clarify some of these issues. I hope that as soon as the Minister has been able to clear his mind he will press the Leader of the House for at least another half day.

Dame Irene Ward: A whole day.

Mr. Godber: A whole day, my hon. Friend says, and I pass that request on to the Government Front Bench. We shall require new legislation to facilitate this and we on this side of the House will certainly give every assistance and any help we can. We want to see it on the Statute Book as soon as possible if it is going to do something which will help the industry, and I gladly give the Minister that assurance.
It seems to me that the real issue, which has not been clarified, is the whole question of imports. This is the point which has dominated the thinking of many hon. Members representing the fishing ports. The Parliamentary Secretary did not respond to the invitation of my hon. Friend who opened the debate when he reminded the Parliamentary Secretary of his own words spoken on 26th July last year, when he said:
If countries abroad are undercutting our own industry in certain ways by subsidies, we shall take action to protect it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1967; Vol. 751, c. 691.]
That was a definite pledge. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us what the action is going to be, because it has been clearly established that there is need for action and that that action has not been taken. Therefore it is on the import side above all that I ask the Minister to say what can be done so that there may be control of some sort. Various of my hon. Friends have suggested different methods, but it is for the Government

to come forward with clear proposals in that field.
It has been made clear again tonight that it has been the tradition over the years to try to maintain a bipartisan approach to fishery problems. We have been very patient with this Government over fishery policy in recent months. I must say to the Minister that the statement we have heard so far this evening is really not adequate in any sense. I would like the Minister to make a fuller statement as soon as he can, making quite clear what is intended, because until he does so the industry will have no confidence at all to go ahead. There may be an easing of anxiety, but it must have clear confidence.
I invite him to make a further statement. He has this clear responsibility, which I know he has no wish to avoid. We do not wish to divide the House tonight, but we expect something much more specific, and I hope that we shall get it, because if not then we shall take stronger action at a later stage before the Summer Recess.

9.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): Fishing debates seem to have a strange mixture of bi-partisanship and party politics injected into them. In reply to the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, made at an earlier stage by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), to some extent, I must say that I do not feel that he injected party politics into the debate. On the contrary, I thought that he merely corrected the views of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West in reminding him that the problem with which we are coping is one which we inherited. It is not sufficient for hon. Members opposite to excuse this by saying that these were decisions and policies adopted six years ago, and that the situation has now changed. Written into the policy was an inflexible projection into the next 10 years.
This was the problem with which we had to deal—a problem of a compulsory band of reduction year after year. It is not sufficient to refer to the situation in Norway and elsewhere. I think that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall)


accepts this to a large degree. Despite the intervention of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) I have to say a word about the Scottish position. With respect to the North-East of England—[Interruption.] I make no apology for this, I am merely understanding her point of view on this. We have dealt at great length, correctly, with the problem facing the distant water fleet, particularly in England and Wales. I want to make a brief comment about the important rôle of the inshore fishing fleet, especially the Scottish inshore fleet. As a Scottish Minister, there is every reason why I should.
As with the deep-sea section there has been some decline in net profitability compared with 1966. The 1966 inshore figures, as everyone knows, were particularly good, and the situation is, I want to avoid a provocative phrase, not unhealthy. The Scottish figures for demersal fish landed by inshore vessels in 1964 were £7·7 million; 1965 £8·8 million; 1966 £9·4 million; and 1967 £9·6 million. During this period we have seen the further merging of the white fish with the herring fleet, and an even more interesting phenomenon, to which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) referred, an increase in the nephrops shellfish industry. This has contributed enormously to import saving, and, on the shellfish side, has increased our exports. We must not overlook the fact that the United Kingdom total of operational subsidy assistance to the white fish and herring vessels under 80 ft. was of the order of £1,250,000 last year. This was no insignificant sum in relation to the total for the industry.
The major points are concentrated around imports and secondly "how much?". There has been a general acceptance of the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend in his speech. It has been a notable advance which will be accepted by the fishing industry a little less grudgingly than it has been by hon. Gentlemen opposite today.
I want the House to be clear on what my hon. Friend said. Therefore, I propose to quote from his speech:
We therefore propose to bring to an end the automatic reduction year by year of operating subsidies to the deep sea fleet imposed by the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1962, and

to give the industry an assurance of continued support for a period of several years.
The right hon. Member for Grantham and the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) asked what we meant by the deep sea fleet and what was happening about the distant and middle water fleet. The answer is that when my hon. Friend referred to the deep sea fleet, it included the middle and distant water vessels. I am sure that the slight grudge which the right hon. Gentleman had will now be discarded and he will welcome the proposals with much more enthusiasm.
The second point was when my hon. Friend said:
The precise form and level of operating subsidy, the method by which it should be adjusted from year to year and the basis of payment, will be determined in the light of our usual analysis of the industry's profitability, which is now proceeding, and after consultation with the industry.
It has been of great interest to me to hear in the debate how many hon. Members have come round to the view of looking ahead to a possible method of working this out and linking it to the question of efficiency. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will contribute to the kind of thinking that is going on in our Departments and in the industry along these lines to see how we can best assist in this direction. I hope this makes the position a good deal clearer for the right hon. Member for Grantham.
I cannot accept that there has been delay. Words have been bandied about regarding a three years gestation period and so on. It has hardly been that. We have come forward in fairly difficult circumstances over the last few months. I suggested last year we would be bringing it forward by the end of the year. There have been certain reasons why there should have been delay, but here we are presenting the principle evolved.
Along with the other kind of assistance is the question of grants and loans. I have taken points made by hon. Members on both sides whether the scrapping ratio is meaningful. This will depend on the success of the industry. We have not written into it something which of its nature would prevent any developments regardless of what happens to the industry. This has been the position since 1962. If our methods succeed and the industry goes forward we shall


be happy to have removed this restriction at the present time. It will be of immense benefit to the inshore fleet particularly in Scotland, not excluding Orkney and Shetland.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) graciously referred to the assistance we have given. He made particular reference to the work done by the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I know that in his area and in the Highlands and Islands there will be pleasure that we are raising the maximum level of grants and loans to 90 per cent.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the problem of industrial fishing. This is a real problem. I have been giving a good deal of attention to it. It involves a number of things: not only breaking away from traditional methods of fishing, but also traditional attitudes, marketing problems, and so on. It has not been easy to find a solution, but I take his point that we should be devoting attention to this matter. We pay about £20 million a year on imports, and anything which can be done to reduce that figure is helpful. However, it is not an easy problem. We are examining the economics of the whole process involved and all the other industrial and fishing factors. I must strike a fairly cautious note on this.
Stocks of most kinds of shellfish are localised and of course the abundance varies both with species and area. Generally in Scotland we think they can bear greater exploitation. There has been a steady rise in the value of Scottish shellfish catch in the last five years. Some reductions in the lobster catch recently have been offset by the increase in newer kinds of shellfish like nephrops and escallops. He also raised the question of the need for larger vessels. This would be tied up with our grant and loan arguments.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolridge-Gordon) again raised the question tied up with the conservation of stocks of herring and other fish. Ever since I was a small child playing round the herring barrels I have been asked by fishermen and fishwives "where have the herring gone?"—a popular cry in the North-East and Orkney and Shetland Islands. The herring do not seem to have gone—in fact there is no

indication that they have gone in this sense.
It is interesting to know that the United Kingdom belongs to International Commissions on both sides of the Atlantic involved with international regulations for conserving stocks and we are continually looking at this problem. There was a meeting in Iceland only this week of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission which, on the initiative of the United Kingdom, invited the countries interested in North-East Arctic haddock and cod fisheries to carry out special studies on measures of limiting fishing to increase the yield. We are keeping a watchful eye on the haddock. There has been this development this week which should be of value to us in the future.
Coming now to imports, the hon. Member for Haltemprice quoted the figure of £100 million for imports. He must be reminded, in fact all hon. Members must be reminded, and this has been said before, that something like £30 million is for canned salmon and £40 million for other similar products which will not compete with British landings. The value of imports for human consumption we should be looking at is something of the order of £21 million. We all know the seriousness of this but it is wrong to bandy around inflated figures which do not give any proper concept of the problem.
In the statement made by my hon. Friend last July evidence was brought forward regarding our position. We are still looking at that. There are problems involved in agreements on imports—my hon. Friend brought in the dramatic example of the smelter, as a reminder to hon. Members opposite that we should not push too hard on the import question at the present time. We are aware of the seriousness of the position, but Britain is a trading nation and must survive in the coming years in that way. The healthiness of the fishing industry will depend on the healthiness of the British economy. I would have thought the better solution to this was to go along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Kingston up Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in his interesting comments demanding an aggressive marketing policy. Without doubt there is a bigger market within our own country.


This is true of Scotland where we produce the best fish in the world but do not eat nearly enough of the British landings. Aggressive marketing policies would help in that.
Hon. Members who have referred to the earlier statement are now a little bit more satisfied. The Government has taken a decision in principle to move forward from the position we have by removing the statutory requirements that the subsidy to the deep sea fleet must be reduced and we have assured the industry of support over the years. We believe that we have the confidence of the industry. We recognise the importance of the industry to the economy and we are determined to give it all support. I am sure my hon. Friend's statement will help to bring back that confidence which has been lacking for so long in the industry.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Export Guarantees Bill [Lords] and on the Firearms Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.

SHORT TITLE AND REPEALS.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: Under the Acts repealed by this Clause, guarantees have been issued in the past similar

to those described in this consolidation Measure in Clause 1(2) for the encouragement of trade with other countries. Many of those guarantees are current and continuing, and I hope that the Solicitor-General can give the Committee an assurance that the repeal of the parent Statutes which gave birth to those guarantees does not invalidate the guarantees. There are frequently in consolidation Measures saving Clauses for orders, or directions, or functions of a Minister, and indeed we have one in this Measure in Clause 1(4) in which it is said that the Export Guarantees Advisory Council constituted for the purposes of the Act of 1939
and continued for the purposes of the enactments repealed by this Act shall be further continued by the Board of Trade for the purposes of this Act.
It has been necessary to make specific mention of that in the Bill, and it seems a little extraordinary that no mention is made of these continuing obligations of the Board of Trade under guarantees issued under Statutes which are to be repealed. Do the guarantees survive the repeal of their parent Statutes?

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): There is, I think, no need for anxiety about this. As I understand it, the position is that although the Board of Trade needs the authority of Parliament to commit public funds by giving the guarantees with which the Bill is concerned, a guarantee itself is in nature of a contract and cannot be affected by the repeal of the Act under the authority of which it is given. I think that that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page).
If there could be any possible doubt on the matter, I think that it would be laid to rest by Section 38(2) of the Interpretation Act, 1889, paragraph (c) of which says that the repeal does not
affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred under any enactment so repealed.
If further reassurance were needed I would ask the hon. Gentleman and the Committee to take note of the point that when the Export Guarantees Act of 1949 replaced the previous enactment Section 8 of that Act, like the Clause with which we are concerned, merely repealed those enactments without any saving.
I trust that those observations will make the hon. Gentleman and the Committee content with the Clause as it stands.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

FIREARMS BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.

POWER TO PROHIBIT MOVEMENT OF ARMS AND AMMUNITION.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I want to ask questions about Clause 6, on the ground that it does not seem to be in conformity with the existing law. I think that I am in order in doing so, judging from page 553 of Erskine May which deals, of course, with Amendments. I am dealing with the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," which I think must be on the same principle. Erskine May says:
An amendment which seeks to bring the bill into conformity with the existing law, if the chairman is satisfied that the bill, as drafted, would effect an alteration in the law
is in order.

The Chairman: In the interests of order, I should say that the hon. Member has put down Amendments to this Clause which were not selected, because I am satisfied that the Bill as drafted does not effect an alteration in the law. Neverthe-

less, it is open to him to ask a limited question on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Page: I am much obliged, Sir Eric.
The question is this. A Statutory Instrument is referred to in Clause 6(3) and a Statutory Instrument, of course, is delegated legislation made under a statutory power. As such, it can be questioned in the courts and repealed by the Minister who made it. It can be questioned in the courts on the grounds of ultra vires, that it is outside the powers given to the Minister under the enabling Statute. But if its consent is embodied in Statute, as I suggest it is in Clause 6(3) in respect of the Stautory Instrument there mentioned, then the content is converted into Statute law and is no longer questionable in the courts or repealable by the Minister under some other Statutory Instrument.
This was recognised, if I may quote precedent for it, in the National Insurance Act of 1965, which itself embodied Statutory Instruments but included a Clause preserving the right of questioning the validity of the Statutory Instruments in the courts and of repealing them if the Minister saw fit or amending them by other Statutory Instruments. Clause 6(3), particularly paragraph (b), mentions an Order under Acts which are repealed by this Measure. An Order is specifically mentioned in the margin and it is evidently intended that subsection (3)(b) should refer specifically to that Order and to no other.
By doing so, it makes that Order in future unquestionable in the courts and unalterable by the Minister by any further Order or other Statutory Instrument. To that extent, it seems to alter the law. Perhaps the Solicitor-General can explain the reasons for including this Order in that form.

10.11 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) raised points on this matter on Second Reading, and I have been glad to look into them since then. The reference in the margin to the Statutory Rule and Order 1922, No. 1263, proves to be, as I said on Second Reading, a mere matter of reference. The 1922 Order made under the powers conferred by Section 9 of the Firearms Act, 1920,


is now valid. It is a valid Order and will remain so, I understand, until and unless it is revoked by a subsequent Order by virtue of Clause 6(4). On that view of the matter I invite the Committee to form the opinion that the character and content and legal effect of the Statutory Instrument is not altered in these circumstances and in this context by its incorporation in the Bill. I think that is right. I think the position about this Order remains the same and so remains unless and until there is a variation or revocation by virtue of subsection (4) of the Clause.

Mr. Graham Page: I am gratified by the fact that the Solicitor-General does not intend to embody an Order in the Bill so as to make it Statute law, but I question what he said about subsection (4), which refers to,
An order under this section.
Subsection (3) refers in paragraph (b) to
an order made under section 9 of the Firearms Act 1920.
Later in that same paragraph it refers, by the words at the end, to "and this section". So there is some distinction between an Order made under the old Act and an Order made under this Clause. It seems that subsection (4) applies only

to an Order made under this Clause and would not therefore enable the Minister to revoke or amend an Order under Section 9 of the Firearms Act, 1920.
I would have been happy if subsection (4) said, "any of the Orders mentioned in this Section", but it does not go so far as that. It seems faulty in drafting in that respect.

The Solicitor-General: I suggest that on a correct construction of this Clause subsection (4) is not to be regarded as confined in its application to paragraph (a) in the previous subsection.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 to 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 7 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

DR. VICTORIA TERRELL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

10.16 p.m.

Sir Cyril Black: I am glad of this opportunity to raise in the House the case of my constituent, Dr. Victoria Terrell Dr. Terrell obtained her medical qualification at Warsaw, a qualification which is, I believe, well regarded in medical circles throughout the world. She was of Polish nationality and, on coming to this country, obtained a certificate of temporary registration as a medical practitioner. She worked for a period at St. Lawrence's Hospital, Cater-ham, Surrey, specialising in clinical work among mentally deficient children. She served there in all for about two years and, according to my information, her service was entirely satisfactory to the hospital authorities and the hospital was sorry when she left.
Dr. Terrell gave up her post at the hospital because she married my constituent, Mr. Christopher Terrell, and in due course gave birth to a child. During the latter stages of her pregnancy, and while the baby was young, she found it necessary to give up work temporarily and attend to her responsibilities as a wife and mother.
After her marriage, Dr. Terrell became a naturalised British citizen with the intention of living permanently in this country in my constituency. About a year ago she wished to return to medical work and at that time her old post at St. Lawrence's Hospital was unfilled. I understand that the hospital was both willing and anxious to re-engage her, she having for them the advantage of experience and qualifications for the work. The hospital was unable at that time to obtain the services of another doctor.
Unhappily, Dr. Terrell was unable to return to her old post because the Genera Medical Council was either unable or unwilling to grant her another certificate of temporary registration, the reason, I understand, being that the Council considered that now that she had become a naturalised British subject and

was married to a British subject it was reasonable to assume that she would be permanently resident in this country. While the Council was willing before these events to grant her temporary registration, in the new circumstances in which she was placed it was not willing to do so.
Dr. Terrell, who is anxious to resume medical practice in this country, is now taking a medical course at Dublin, but I submit that, inasmuch as the course that she is taking is merely in her case going over ground that she has already covered in her original medical course at Warsaw, she is being subjected to delay and expanse unnecessarily by having to go through this further medical course.
It is relevant to notice that, if Dr. Terrell had been trained in a Commonwealth country with a reciprocity agreement with the United Kingdom, on coming here she would have been automatically eligible to practise, even though she might have been unable to speak, write or understand a word of English. The fact is, as I submit, that her Warsaw qualification is at least equal to many of the acceptable medical qualifications in Commonwealth countries. Dr. Terrell at least has the additional advantage over some doctors from Commonwealth countries that she can speak, write and understand English.
I understand that Dr. Terrell's case is by no means unique, although it is somewhat exceptional, there being other foreign doctors in the country suffering from similar disadvantages; so that the importance of this debate extends over a wider field than to one individual only.
The case of Dr. Terrell has received over the last 12 months extensive coverage in both the medical and the national Press. The position in which Dr. Terrell is placed has, I think it is not unfair to say, been adversely criticised in every medical and national paper which has reported the circumstances of the case.
The restrictions to which Dr. Terrell and other similarly situated doctors are subject would be understandable and intelligible if in this country there was a sufficiency of doctors or too many doctors, but I think that it will be common ground on both sides of the House


that there is in this country a considerable shortage of doctors and that there are most appalling shortages in many other parts of the world, including particularly the continents of Africa and Asia.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not without sympathy with the point that the hon. Gentleman is advancing. Is the restriction to which he refers a matter of law or of administration? If it is one of law, he cannot pursue it on this Adjournment debate.

Sir C. Black: I appreciate that point, Sir. I gave careful consideration to it.
I must admit immediately that I am not an expert in these matters, which are subject to some doubt and difficulty; but I gather that the position is that the Minister has certain powers of representation in these cases and that it is not beyond his power to intervene if he felt it right to do so. That is what I am asking him to do. I was trying to be, and I will continue to be, as careful as possible not to impinge on the legislative side, upon which I appreciate that I must not touch.
The medical profession itself appears to be concerned about, and even dissatisfied with, the present position operating both in Dr. Terrell's case and in other cases. A commentator in the authoritative medical journal, the Lancet, said of Dr. Terrell's case as long ago as 19th August, 1967:
The publicity given last week to the case of Mrs. Terrell illustrates the distinction which is made between graduates from the Commonwealth and those from other countries.… The manoeuvre of temporary registration is an unhappy one, born of post-war politics, and based on the palpably irrelevant consideration of duration of stay. Surely it is ludicrous that when a doctor declares an intention to remain in Great Britain the reward is a decree of unfitness to practise here? If there is any justification at all for two different kinds of registration, they must be related to fitness to practise supervised on the one hand and unsupervised on the other. If supervision is required, registration should clearly require that the doctor embarks on a recognised course of supplementary training, and it should be for a strictly limited period which is determined by educational factors alone.
Only today I have received a letter from Dr. Derek Stevenson, Secretary of the British Medical Association. He says:

Your constituent, Mr. Christopher Terrell, has been to see me and has told me that you are to initiate an adjournment debate in the House of Commons on the registration of foreign-qualified doctors, such as Mrs. Terrell.
This is a complicated subject, on which it is not wise to dogmatise. I will, however, say this: in the present shortage of medical manpower in this country, I should hope that ways and means could be found to retain the services of doctors who have worked satisfactorily on the Temporary Medical Register for some time. This is a viewpoint which I have already expressed, and will continue to express to the General Medical Council and to the Ministry of Health.
I have tried to raise this matter in no controversial or censorious spirit. I am concerned, as I think the House will be, with only one matter—the apparent failure to make the best use of available medical manpower. I hope that the Minister will feel able in this and similar cases to confer with the General Medical Council with a view to its being able to deal exceptionally with exceptional cases like this. I hope that the Minister, who, I think, is not unsympathetic to this case, will use his good offices to get Dr. Terrell and other similarly situated back to work, where their services are so much required.

10.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): I very much appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) has spoken about this case. I am not unacquainted with the details of this history. In raising the question of Mrs. Terrell's registration as a medical practitioner and the recognition of medical qualifications granted abroad, the hon. Gentleman has served his constituent well.
This debate gives us an opportunity of debating a matter about which there has been considerable misunderstanding and it would be to the general advantage that the misunderstanding should be cleared up.
I shall start with a short explanation of the provisions of the Medical Act, 1956. The first point I must make is that under that Act the responsibility for registration lies wholly with the General Medical Council, and the Council is an independent body. The Act assigns certain functions, mostly of a judicial nature, to the Privy Council, but it does not make the General Medical


Council responsible to my right hon. Friend or to any other Minister.
It would not, therefore, be right for me to discuss whether Mrs. Terrell should or could be granted some form of registration, since that is a matter in which the Minister of Health has no standing. But I can help to dispel some of the misapprehensions that have arisen about the question. I certainly do not want to appear to be slamming the door in the hon. Gentleman's face.
To understand what is involved, it is helpful to look first at the requirements for qualifying in this country. The prospective doctor is required to undergo undergraduate medical training lasting at least five years. This is followed by the pre-registration year, during which the graduate may practise only in resident posts in approved hospitals. At the end of that year, he can obtain full registration and be entitled to practise on his own responsibility in whatever way he wishes.
Let us turn now to the position of doctors who qualify abroad. May I say that I believe that the greater flexibility we have in accepting medical qualifications of approved standards, the better. Doctors with certain recognised Commonwealth or foreign qualifications can obtain registration in this country on the strength of the qualification granted abroad. Similar conditions apply to such graduates as to British graduates: the primary qualification in itself entitles them to provisional registration and they must satisfy the General Medical Council that they also have the experience required under the Act to obtain full registration. The provisions relating to experience are rather more flexible than for a graduate in this country to take account of different varieties of experience which graduates may have obtained.
A doctor who has qualified abroad, irrespective of the country of qualification, can obtain temporary registration under Section 25 of the Act, provided his qualification is acceptable and he is or intends to be in the United Kingdom temporarily for the purpose of practising medicine in a hospital or other institution approved by the General Medical Council. This is a limited form of registration and was introduced under

the Medical Practitioners and Pharmacists Act, 1947, to regularise the position of doctors from abroad who visit this country for limited periods either as teachers or as postgraduate students.
I will turn now to what I know of Mrs. Terrell's own situation. If I refer to her as "Mrs." Terrell, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am in no way discounting the fact that she is a qualified doctor from Warsaw. Mrs. Terrell qualified in Warsaw in 1961. Although the known facts of her career are incomplete it appears that she was a "student of paediatrics" at the Medical Academy in Warsaw and took her final examination at the end of her fifth year, followed by a 40-week internship to obtain her Lekarz diploma. She then would apparently immediately specialise in paediatrics for a period of 18 months.
I understand that Mrs. Terrell is now studying for a British primary qualification. According to my information, although I have not had written confirmation, she has apparently passed some of the examinations, but still has medicine and surgery to complete. When she has her primary qualification she will be able to apply for provisional registration, the first step to full registration under the Act. I certainly wish Mrs. Terrell well on her course. I know that she has domestic problems in relation to children and that it is not an easy thing for her to carry out.
Mrs. Terrell came to this country in February, 1963, and first applied for temporary registration in April, 1964. She was at that time not married. Further certificates of temporary registration were granted to her in June, 1964, and May, 1965, and on that last occasion the General Medical Council reminded her that they only have power to grant temporary registration to persons who satisfy the Council that they are only in this country temporarily.
The Council heard no more from Mrs. Terrell until Mr. Terrell, in November, 1966, took up with them the question of his wife's obtaining permanent registration in this country. On her marriage to Mr. Terrell, however, she ceased to be temporarily resident in this country and the General Medical Council consequently had no power to continue her temporary registration: her qualification,


moreover, was such that they were not able to grant her provisional or full registration to enable her to continue her work.
During the period that Mrs. Terrell held a temporary registration, she was working with mentally subnormal children at St. Lawrence's Hospital, at Caterham, and there is no doubt that she made a valuable contribution to the work of the National Health Service in that position. There was a great deal of Press criticism, not always well informed, of the position and of the Council during last summer, but the Lancet in its issue of 2nd December, 1967, published an article which set out the facts about the statutory system of temporary registration at some length, and a leader which recognised—and this is an essential point—that the General Medical Council were bound by the powers granted to them by Parliament in the action they took. The leader accepted that change could only be brought about if the powers themselves were amended by legislation. Like the hon. Gentleman I am restricted in what I may say about that subject, because of the rules of Order in this House.
Except for graduates of countries with reciprocal arrangements, doctors who qualify abroad must obtain a British primary medical qualification to obtain provisional or full registration as distinct from temporary registration. The Press criticism concentrated, wrongly I think, on attacking the provisions restricting the grant of registration under Section 18 to countries with reciprocal arrangements. The real problem is to devise a method of granting registrations to doctors from abroad where the content of the training leading to their qualification cannot be known in detail, but without putting the doctors to unnecessary trouble and at the same time without putting patients to the risk of being treated by doctors less thoroughly trained than those who qualify in this country.
One further point I should make is that graduates from abroad do not necessarily have to complete five or six years' training to obtain a British qualification. In 1966, only 25 out of 106 candidates were required by the English and Scottish Conjoint Boards and Apothecaries Society of London to obtain further hospital experience. I

should add that the General Medical Council is discussing with the bodies most directly concerned ways and means of pooling information and of co-ordinating the policies and practices.
My right hon. Friend in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) on 4th December, said that he was in touch with the General Medical Council about the position of doctors who had qualified abroad. It is not a matter which lies wholly within the competence of my hon. Friend and he has, therefore, been considering carefully with other Ministers the information and suggestions put to him. There are also innumerable complexities in trying to arrive at a just solution. I have mentioned one, namely, the difficulty of assessing the quality of training. This is obviously linked to the way in which British graduates are trained and to the methods used in assessing their progress and granting qualifications.
However, the Royal Commission on Medical Education has now published a report which makes far-reaching proposals for revising medical education and granting qualifications in this country. My right hon. Friend and other Ministers concerned are already considering the recommendations of the Royal Commission and the recognition of qualifications granted abroad will no doubt form part of the study. Because of these considerations, a permanent solution cannot be looked for immediately. I am a little sorry to say that, because it sounds as though one important difficulty is being raised against dealing with cases such as that of Mrs. Terrell, but it is a genuine new factor which has entered into the situation.
I hope that I shall not be ruled out of order if I remark that there nevertheless appear to be some amendments to the Medical Act which could be made immediately independently of and without prejudicing the consideration of the long-term solution, and that the Government propose to introduce legislation making certain relatively small changes when the opportunity occurs.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would hope that hon. Members realise that if they are raising a matter on the Adjournment they can raise a matter only of administration, not of changing the law. This is what I suspected earlier.

Mr. Snow: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was not attempting to evade a rule that I fully understand, but to reciprocate in saying that we were not adopting a sterile and stagnant attitude in this matter, and that we were very conscious of the fact that something needs to be done to reform the situation.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that I have been as forthcoming

as I can in the circumstances. It is very much in the public interest that this matter has been ventilated and an opportunity afforded for removing some of the misunderstandings which have occurred and been voiced in the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.